1 / 6

Cash Transfers for Social Protection: Challenges, Impact, and Future Directions

This text discusses the technical concerns and consensus on the positive aspects of cash transfers, such as food purchase, dietary diversity, and asset protection. It also explores the unresolved issues related to market effects, social effects, scaling up, corruption, political will, and making social protection empowering. The text emphasizes the need for complementarity between cash and food aid and highlights the importance of research, learning, and consolidation of lessons. It also outlines immediate research priorities and the need for collaboration and advocacy.

fhull
Download Presentation

Cash Transfers for Social Protection: Challenges, Impact, and Future Directions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “ Summing up ! ”

  2. Technical concerns • Consensus on positives of cash transfers – food purchase (50–70%), dietary diversity, non‑food essential spending (e.g. health), asset protection. • No clear consensus yet on: • Market effects – Pilot projects have negligible impacts on markets/ trade. If cash transfers go to scale: Inflationary impacts? Supply response? Role of traders? • Social effects – gender, community relations, impact on informal transfers • Scaling up – modalities & politics & affordability & sustainability. • Are cash transfers more vulnerable to corruption than food? mis‑use?

  3. Politics / sustainability / rights • “How to move from small-scale NGO-led projects to national government-led institutionalised programmes? • Political analysis; political will; affordability concerns; donor funding commitments. • “How to make governments accountable for addressing hunger in their own countries?” • “How to make social protection empowering and not stigmatising?” • “Rights should come first, not last.” • But: Rights are dangerous – they can raise unrealistic expectations, place unfair pressure on governments with limited capacity and funds.

  4. Cash / food • Need to move beyond the “cash versus food” debate. • “Food aid is guilty until proven innocent; cash is innocent until proved guilty!” • “Cash versus food or cash plus food?” • Complementarity, not competition. • Context-specific solutions to context-specific vulnerabilities, or integrated holistic social protection programmes?

  5. Research / Learning • “Do we need more research?” • “What additional research do we need?” • “What are the knowledge gaps?” • Evidence base is small, claims and extrapolations being made are very big! • Innovative experimentation with pilot projects (cash transfers, food + cash, vouchers, conditional cash transfers, new technology) – generates much learning. • Lessons need to be consolidated and disseminated – also from beyond the region. • M&E needs to be invested in to capture learning and refine delivery for maximum impact.

  6. Immediate research priorities? • Focus on “upstream” constraints – political will is needed before implementation. • Unresolved issues: • Scaling up – Replication? Networking? • How to influence political will? • Affordability (in the long run) • Financing social protection • Consolidation / Coalition: • Pooling research resources • Sharing information / methodologies / findings • Advocating together

More Related