Let’s start with a recurrent design question: should cash transfers be given to parents or other household members? Ahmed et al evaluated a program offering high school and college girls in Lahore a two-month computer training (from bookkeeping to digital marketing) delivered in the school premises. Upon completion, a cash transfer of 3,000 PKR (about 7.5% of families’ monthly income) would be provided. The paper is interesting as it puts an emphasis on intrahousehold bargaining – that is, girls receive the offer, then parents are contacted, and their consent to participate in the program is based on negotiations in family (see p.6 for a timeline). To test various scenarios, the study offered payments only to daughters (via onsite cash payments), only to families (mobile money), or an equally split incentive (see figure 1, p.10), and parents were provided full or partial information (they may not know about the daughter’s portion). Results are illustrated in the above figure: when parents were given partial information and full payment, training completion rates were significantly higher (between 7-16 percentage points) compared to split or payments only to girls. But under a scenario of complete information, differences were minimal, but lower compared to the partial info scenario. Bottom line: providing parents with cash is likely to bolster program completion.
Intra-household dynamics are popular in this links edition! Ambler et al found that seasonal transfers (plus agricultural support services) in Senegal and Malawi increased the decision power of male household heads at the expense of other males in the households (in part because of shifting distribution norms). Furthermore, Coleman et al show that in Bangladesh, whether families receive cash or food transfers (with or without “nutrition behavior change communication”) doesn’t affect how households distribute food among members overall – that is, food gets distributed equally in absolute and relative terms (or proportionally to individual needs).
More from South Asia: a commentary by Benny reviews the effects of conditional cash transfers on child labor in India and globally, including drawing attention on parameters like adequacy. To put it bluntly, “[t]he impact on child labour depends on whether the cash transfer exceeds the cost of attending school”.
What about East Asia? Also Villaret et al examined the effects of CCTs on child labor, in this case before and during the pandemic in the Philippines: their work shows that cash transfers couldn’t fully offset the opportunity cost of children’s education (hence children of beneficiaries are still likely to work). In Indonesia, beneficiaries that exited the Program Keluarga Harapan CCT displayed contrasting effects on human capital-related behaviors – i.e., there were lasting effects on food consumption (expenditures devoted to eggs and milk) and health-related behaviors (visiting health facilities), but not on education (school attendance and education expenditures).
Big news from Latin America! A study by Mendes et al captures significant macroeconomic multipliers bolstered by Bolsa Familia: a state receiving 1% of GDP in additional allocations for cash transfers grows 2.2% faster than other states, with R$33,000 (about $6,700) of extra transfers spurring the generation of a formal sector job.
Moving to West Africa, Adeyeye and Fischer have a rich paper reviewing the literature connecting social protection, gender, and climate resilience in the Sahel. These are explored through an economic, voice, protection, health (including mental), and education lens (see table 1, p.13 and table 2, p.21 for handy overviews of the links). Bottom line? Most of the social protection lit “focuses on gender equality outcomes and design and implementation features of social protection programs”, while links to climate are still at an “emerging” stage. BTW, “cash transfers may worsen the existing inequalities if the entrenched gender inequalities are not addressed” (p.22).
Let’s stay in region! McIntosh and Zeitlin have an updated version of their famous cash benchmarking study in Rwanda: there, they compare the cost-effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention (including Village Nutrition Schools; Farmer field learning schools, with possible distribution of small livestock, seeds, etc.; Savings and Internal Lending Communities; and Community-Based Environmental Health Promotion Program) against an equivalent amount of unconditional cash, i.e., about $120, as well as three additional arms with lower and higher payments (see p.38). The findings are sobering, with neither the in-kind graduation model nor an equivalent amount of cash improved child nutrition within a year.
Bonus on Africa: an article by Abdella et al report that over half of PSNP beneficiaries in an Oromia district of Ethiopia believed there “is no appreciable difference between beneficiaries who are receiving benefits now and those who are graduating”.
Three humanitarian resources! A study on Afghanistan by Callen et al estimate that the cost of digital cash transfers is $6.7 cents per dollar delivered, or 40% less than the estimated global average for humanitarian cash assistance ($17 cents). Kelly’s monthly roundup of Humanitarian Evidence and Discourse Summary is out and features 36 new humanitarian resources; SPIAC-B lays out common principles for linking humanitarian assistance and social protection
Final fireworks: an ILO brief showcases select activities promoting universal health coverage with a rights-based approach (h/t Ian Orton); an event on pathways to building universal social protection floors is coming up on Jan 25; and another one next week (Jan 11) examines social protection in the just transition process.
Happy 2024 everyone!