Is the “magic” happening? Gassmann et al offer one of the first systematic reviews of multiplier effects of cash transfers – that is, the quantification of money generated in the economy for every unit of cash delivered as cash assistance. Based on 23 studies, they find that cash transfers generate positive effects in local markets, although their size and nature vary significantly by design (see features on p.8-12), level of analysis (macro, meso, or micro) and estimation technique (see p.22-25). As such, the paper discusses the pros, cons and data requirements of four multiplier estimation methods, including social accounting matrix, computable general equilibrium, local economy-wide impact evaluation, and econometric techniques. Main takeaway? Money to people is money to the economy, but the magnitude of real multipliers varies between near-zero and 2.49. Could such knock-on effects help redefine the notion of “fiscal sustainability”?
That’s not all! A paper by Daidone et al was just released and estimating a real multiplier for Tanzania’s PSSN cash transfers of 1.55. See the interesting breakdown by beneficiary profiles (the labor constrained benefit the most), with a slice of benefits also accruing to non-beneficiaries (p.23) (h/t Amber Peterman).
More from Africa, but on a different issue. An interesting article by Mesfin and Cecchi compares the effects on social capital from participating on an unconditional vs conditional transfer by adolescent women and their households in Malawi: they found that CCTs had greater positive effects on trust, a result driven by participants with initial reciprocal beliefs.
Moving to the US, what are the intergenerational effects of cash transfers? A study by Copeland et al investigates the impact of receiving ∼$5,000 annually per person (profits received from a casino) in the Great Smoky Mountains. Building on data between 1993 and 2020, the authors found that while transfers had positive long-term effects on individuals, they did not impact the “home environment” of participants who became parents. Bonus from the States: Bea et al assess how the provision of TANF cash transfers (and SNAP vouchers) shapes high-cost payday lending.
From North to South America: how can cash transfer foster financial inclusion? In Argentina, the AUH encouraged the use of debit cards (as opposed to ATM withdrawals) by granting a rebate of 15% of expenditures. However, only one-quarter of beneficiaries claimed such rebate. Why? An experiment by Cruces found that cultural factors (a preference for cash), administrative barriers and security issues limited the potential of digital payments.
Additional news from LAC: how to generate jobs during the pandemic? An experiment by Gomez and Gonzalez-Velosa evaluates Colombia’s Empléate, a pay-for-performance scheme based on successful placement of participants into formal employment (plus premia for sustaining jobs for 3 to 6 months after insertion). Results? Participants were 9% more likely to secure a formal job five to eight months post-treatment (with larger impacts among men and individuals with work experience in sectors less affected by the pandemic) (h/t Cornelius Von Lenthe).
Speaking of jobs, the ILO released a handy online “policy resource package” on extending social protection to informal workers. The package consists of an 8-chapter good practice guide (e.g., see chapter 5 on administrative procedures and chapter 6 on financing, and chapter 8 on lessons learned) as well as crisp set of seven issue briefs for different worker occupational profiles (e.g., domestic workers, platform workers, etc.).
What’s new in the humanitarian sphere? Well, certainly the “localization” theme is very hot (i.e., empowering local actors in social protection-type assistance). For instance, Vooris et al have highlighted some interesting practices in local involvement across the MENA region, including the Estidama++ in Jordan, capacity development of the Ankawa Humanitarian Committee, and the engagement around the Cash Assistance in Re-Emerging Markets (CARMA).
On a more sobering note, a report by TYF assesses the strength of the evidence on various localization dimensions in Yemen (the evidence scale includes no, minimal, moderate, and strong evidence). It found that there was minimal evidence of partnerships among local/national and international actors (p.20), leadership (or that national actors define and lead on humanitarian action, p.26), coordination and integration (p.31), policy influence (p.41), institutional efficiency and capacity (p.45), and funding (p.49). A more encouraging moderate level of evidence was detected for “participation” of communities (p.37). Double bonus: Cheung blogs about why just advocating for localization is not enough, and here are some guidelines by APNR et al for co-producing research with displaced populations.
Another humanitarian resource: Reid and Sangalli discuss how to operationalize the humanitarian-social protection “nexus” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: they argue that “neither set of actors are completely clear how to proceed”, and that practical issues, like “assess the overlaps and adequacy of programming for 30 recipient households” helped make linkages and coordination more concrete.
Assorted materials! A piece for the G20 by Burattini and Sinha calls for attention to the role of social protection in food security in Brazil and India (“… while cash transfers and school meals can enhance access to food, the type of food that is consumed matters”). Lenhard has a rapid primer on the relationship between migration and poverty. And Tsuruga and Quarina examine unemployment and underemployment in Myanmar (which particularly affected wholesale and manufacturing sectors, see p.19)
Final kiosk announcements: the Digital Convergence Initiative launched a public review and call for feedback, while a workshop on interoperability in action was held on August 24 (h/t Lena Blind); check out the new UBI Piloters Network and its newsletter (h/t Neil Howard, Grace Gregory); and the international basic income week is coming up on September 18-24.