I have just read a paper on social protection in Africa with which I profoundly disagree. It has a good main title – “Beware of the Crocodile” – but it goes steadily downhill from there. Even the sub-title is misleading: “Quantitative Evidence on How Universal Old Age Grants Distort the Social Assistance Systems of Low-Income Countries”.
Cash transfer programmes that provide a small but meaningful amount of money to poor and vulnerable households on a regular basis have become an increasingly important policy tool in many countries in the Global South. A common rationale for the provision of such transfers is that it empowers its beneficiaries. However, when paying a closer look at such programmes, reality is not quite so straightforward.
In this paper we carry out an impact evaluation of the Lesotho Child Grants Programme (CGP) and the Sustainable Poverty Reduction through Income, Nutrition and access to Government Services (SPRINGS) project. The impact assessment seeks to document the welfare and economic impacts of CGP and SPRINGS on direct beneficiaries and assess whether combining the cash transfers with a package of rural development interventions can create positive synergies at both individual and household level, especially in relation to income generating activities and nutrition.
This study reviews unconditional cash transfers in 15 countries of east and southern Africa, examines four programmes in more depth (in Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique and Zambia), and draws lessons for policy from this comparative review. The methodology is qualitative; this report does not provide a quantitative analysis of these programmes. Since unconditional cash transfers are a relatively new policy instrument in Africa, several knowledge gaps exist. Specifically, rigorous impact assessments, comparative cost-benefit analyses (e.g.
This article contributes to the literature on child well‐being by examining gender‐differentiated impacts on child schooling, labor, and time use by comparing impacts on outcomes for boys and girls across married male‐headed households (MHHs) and de jure unmarried female‐headed households (FHHs), and by the sex of cash transfer recipients. For the empirical analysis, we use impact evaluation data from the Child Grants Programme (CGP) in Lesotho, which consists of a CT provided to poor and vulnerable rural households with children.
This toolkit brings together information on key concepts, diagnostic tools and guidance for determining whether shock-responsive social protection is appropriate in a given context, and the factors that might influence its effectiveness. It is aimed at social protection, humanitarian and disaster risk management professionals who are interested in pursuing better responses to emergencies, including in fragile and conflict-affected settings. This toolkit will help readers to: