Africa: Rational and Evidences

cockedhatpocketInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

11 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 11 μήνες)

91 εμφανίσεις




Social Cash Transfer Programs in
Africa: Rational and Evidences










Solomon Asfaw


Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA)

Rome, Italy


Outline

of

the presentation

1.
Background of CT programs in Africa

2.
Why do we expect growth linkages?

3.
What does the evidence say?


Expansion of government
-
run

cash transfers in Sub Saharan Africa


Approximately half of the countries of SSA have
some kind of government
-
run CT program


And others have multilateral/NGO
-
run CT programs


Some programs are national


Others scaling up


Some pilots beginning this year


Beneficiaries predominately rural, most engaged
in agriculture

Cash transfers national scale up


(as of end 2010)


% of population covered by cash transfer program

0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of households covered

0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
5

Transfer values

(share of recipient consumption)

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Burkina
Kenya
CT-OVC
Lesotho
RSA
CSG
Ghana
Zim
Zambia
CGP
Zambia
MCP
Malawi
Transfer share of
consumption
6

What’s particular about

cash transfers in SSA
--
context


HIV/AIDS


Economic and social vulnerability


Widespread poverty


Continued reliance on subsistence agriculture and informal
economy


Exit path from poverty is not necessarily through the
labor market


Less developed markets and risk, risk, risk


Higher risk and
vulnerability

Weaker institutions


With exception

of Southern Africa, l
ess fiscal space
---
donors play a strong role


Still missing consensus among national policy makers


Weak institutional capacity to implement programs


Weak
supply of services (health and education)

Wide range of designs


Universal programs


Old age pensions, child grants


Targeted programs


Focus on ultra poor, labor constrained; OVC and other
specific vulnerabilities


Cash for work for able bodied


A few cash transfer programs are explicitly linked to
productive activities


Prominent role of community in targeting


Unconditional (for the most part)


“Soft” conditions and strong messages




Labor
-
constrained and OVC criteria select
unique households: Malawi

0
.01
.02
.03
.04
Density
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
age
0
.02
.04
.06
Density
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
How old is [NAME] (years)?
Malawi SCT Households

Rural Ultra
-
Poor IHS3

9

Labor
-
constrained and OVC criteria select
unique households: Zambia

Zambia (
Monze
) SCT Households

Rural Ultra
-
Poor LCMS 2010

0
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
Density
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
agey
Age Distribution of Monze, Zambia SCT Beneficiaries
0
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
Density
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
agey
Age Distribution of Rural Severly Poor: Zambia LCMS 2010
10



5 (+1) ways in which cash
transfer programs have
productive/economic impacts
and lead to improved
resilience


Why do we expect economic
impacts (growth linkages) from
SCT programs?

1.

Improve human capital


Nutritional status


Health status


Educational attainment




Typically core objectives of CT programs

Underlying rationale for CCTs in LAC

enhance productivity


improve employability

2.

Facilitate change in productive
activities

By relaxing

credit, savings

and/or liquidity
constraints

and/or constructing community
assets



Investment in productive activities


Allocation of labor, inputs


Accumulation of productive assets


Farm implements, land, livestock, vehicle, inventory


Change in productive strategies


New crops, techniques


New line of products or services


New activities (off farm wage labor, migration?)



3.

Better ability to deal with

risk and shocks

By providing insurance via regular and
predictable CTs


Avoid detrimental risk coping strategies


Distress sales of productive assets, children school
drop
-
out, risky income
-
generation activities


Avoid risk averse production strategies


“Safety first” or “eat first”


Increase risk taking into more profitable crops
and/or activities


Specialization or diversification


Higher value crops or ….. migration

4.

Relieve pressure on informal

insurance mechanisms

By regular and predictable CTs to the poorest and
most vulnerable


Reduce burden on social networks


Local networks of reciprocal relationships


In SSA, often weakened and over burdened in context of
HIV/AIDS


Rejuvenate social networks


Allow beneficiaries to participate in social
networks


Allow non beneficiaries to redirect their
resources

5.

Strengthen the local economy


Immediate impact of transfer will raise purchasing
power of beneficiary households.


As beneficiary households spend cash, impacts
immediately spread outside beneficiary households to
others inside and outside treated villages.


Trade and purchases within village may set in motion
income multipliers inside treated villages.


Periodic markets and purchases outside village will
shift income effects to non
-
treated villages, potentially
unleashing income multipliers there.


In longer run, as program is scaled up, transfers will
have direct and indirect (or
general equilibrium)
effects throughout the region of implementation.

How do local economy effects work?

Transfer

Control

Treatment

Transfer

Control

Treatment

Transfer

Rest of
Lesotho

Rest of
World

Control

Treatment

Transfer

Rest of
Lesotho

Rest of
World

Control

Treatment

Transfer

Transfer

Rest of
Lesotho

Rest of
World

Treatment

Control?

What does the evidence say?


Lots of evidence on human capital


Poverty, food security and food consumption


Nutrition, health and education


Relatively few studies on risks and shocks


Very few studies on


Productive activities


Multiplier effects


Social networks


Climate change adaptation

1
st

and 2
nd

generation cash transfer program
impact evaluations in SSA (19 in 13)


Malawi SCT


Mchinji

pilot, 2008
-
2009


Expansion, 2012
-
2014


Kenya


CT
-
OVC, Pilot 2007
-
2011


CT
-
OVC,
Expansion, 2012
-
2014


HSNP, Pilot 2010
-
2012


Mozambique PSA


Expansion, 2008
-
2009


Zambia


Monze

pilot, 2007
-
2010


Child Grant, 2010
-
2013


South Africa CSG


Retrospective, 2010


Burkina Faso


Experiment, 2008
-
2010


Ethiopia


PSNP
, 2006
-
2010


Tigray

SPP, 2012
-
2014


Ghana LEAP


Pilot, 2010
-
2012


Lesotho,
CGP


Pilot,
2011
-
2013


Uganda, SAGE


Pilot, 2012
-
2014


Zimbabwe, SCT


Pilot, 2013
-
2015


Tanzania,

TASAF


Pilot,
2009
-
2012


Expansion, 2012
-
2014


Niger


Begins
in
2012




Summary of results on social
outcomes



Schooling

Morbidity

Health care

Anthro.

Burkina

x

Ghana LEAP

x


NS

X



Kenya CT
-
OVC

x


x*

X*


NS


Lesotho



Mlw Mchinji

X

X

X

?

RSA CSG

X


NS



Zam CGP

Zam Monze

x


NS

NS




Zam MCP



Not collected x=significant empty=pending NS=not significant

24

Summary of results on economic
outcomes

Not collected x=significant empty=pending NS=not significant



Consumption

Food security

Assets

Production

Burkina









Eth PSNP

x

x

x

x

Ghana LEAP


NS

X

NS

NS

Kenya CT
-
OVC

X

X

x


NS

Lesotho

Mlw Mchinji

X

X

x

x

RSA CSG



X





Zam

CGP

X

X

x

x

Zam Monze


NS


NS


x

x

Zam MCP

x

x

x

x

25

Comparison of secondary school impacts
of CCTs and SCTs

Impact of Cash Transfers on Secondary School Enrollment (percentage
points)

Mexico
Progresa

CCT

6

Colombia
Familias

CCT

6

Turkey

CCT

5

Bangladesh (females only)

CCT

12

Ecuador

CT, announced as
CCT

10

Kenya

SCT

8

Zambia (
Monze
)

SCT

9

Ghana LEAP

SCT

6

Our websites


From Protection to Production Project

http://
www.fao.org/economic/PtoP/en/



The Transfer Project

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/transfer