A Rigorous Review Of Programme Impact And Of The Role Of Design And .

Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?rigour in the research methods used by each study. The studies that showed no or low concernsin terms of risk of bias and methodological rigour were included in the review. The final groupof 201 studies which passed the search, retrieval and assessment stages are listed in an annotatedbibliography (Harman et al., 2016), which contains detailed information on each study, includingthe intervention analysed, methods used and outcomes covered, as a resource for researchers whencarrying out future literature reviews and analyses.For each outcome area, evidence was extracted and synthesised for five to seven indicators,identified on the basis of their policy relevance, coverage in the literature and prevalence of sexdisaggregated results. For quantitative, counterfactual analysis, the magnitude, sign and statisticalsignificance of coefficients measuring the effects of cash transfers and of variations in their designfeatures on individual- and household-level outcomes were extracted, at the highest level ofaggregation reported. Whenever available, disaggregated results for women and girls were alsoextracted and analysed.In synthesising the evidence, the review relied on both a vote counting and narrative synthesisapproach. The vote counting approach reports the number of studies that show an increase/decrease in a specific indicator and provides an indication of the strength of the evidence availablefor each indicator. While it provides a useful tool to summarise findings, its limitations includethe fact that it does not take sample size or magnitude of effects into account. Furthermore, itaggregates findings across different cash transfer programmes, obscuring differences in policyobjectives, target population and baseline levels. To at least partly address these shortcomings, thereview also relies on a narrative synthesis, which includes examples and discussions of the rangesand magnitudes of effects and of results that are not statistically signficant.The evidence base201 studies were included in the annotated bibliography. The scale of the evidence base variesby outcome and by design and implementation feature. For outcome areas, the evidencebase is largest for ‘education’ (99 studies) and ‘health and nutrition’ (89 studies), followed by‘employment’ (80 studies) and smallest for ‘savings, investment and production’ (37 studies). Onthe whole, there are fewer studies explicitly designed to analyse the effects of cash transfer designand implementation features on outcomes of interest, with no relevant studies found for ‘grievancemechanisms and programme governance’, though there is a substantial evidence base of 41 studiesfor ‘core design features’. In total, 165 studies were included in the extraction stage, ranging from74 studies for ‘employment’ to 27 studies for ‘savings, investment and production’. These are thestudies from which the evidence discussed in this review is drawn.For the studies included in the extraction stage, with the exception of the ‘savings, investment andproduction’ outcome, the majority focused on cash transfer programmes in Latin America; acrossall search sub-questions, approximately 54% of the studies report on a programme from LatinAmerica. Around 38% of the studies focused on a programme in sub-Saharan Africa, with studieslooking at East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and NorthAfrica accounting for around 8%.In total, this review covers 56 different cash transfer programmes, with some studies analysingmore than one programme. The majority were conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (55%), mostlylocated in Latin America. 25% of the programmes were unconditional cash transfers (UCTs),mostly implemented in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the remaining programmes, 9% involved acombination of CCTs and UCTs, 7% were social pensions and 4% were enterprise grants.Page 6ContentsAcknowledgementsExecutive summarySECTION IChapter 1IntroductionChapter 2ConceptualframeworkChapter 3Review of cashtransfer reviewsChapter 4MethodsChapter 5The evidence baseSECTION IIChapter 6The impact ofcash transfers onmonetary povertyChapter 7The impact ofcash transfers oneducationChapter 8The impact of cashtransfers on healthand nutritionChapter 9The impact ofcash transfers onsavings, investmentand productionChapter 10The impact ofcash transfers onemploymentChapter 11The impact ofcash transfers onempowermentSECTION IIIChapter 12Summary offindings andconclusionReferences

Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?The impacts of cash transfers by outcomePage 7ContentsAcknowledgementsMonetary povertyExecutive summaryThere is a comparatively large evidence base linking cash transfers to reductions in monetarypoverty. The evidence extracted consistently shows an increase in total and food expenditure andreduction in Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures.SECTION I35 studies report findings on impact on household total expenditure, with 26 of thesedemonstrating at least one significant impact and 25 finding an increase in total expenditure.Among the 31 studies reporting impacts on household food expenditure, 25 show at least onestatistically significant effect, with 23 of these being an increase. Two studies report a decreaseowing to a reduction in labour supply and possible prioritisation of savings over consumption.Nine studies consider impacts on Foster–Greer–Thorbecke poverty measures (poverty headcount,poverty gap, squared poverty gap). Among these studies, around two-thirds find a statisticallysignificant impact. While cash transfers are shown to mostly increase total and food expenditure,it appears that in many cases this impact is not big enough to have a subsequent effect on aggregatepoverty levels. However, with one exception, the studies consistently show decreases in poverty.Six studies reported sex-disaggregated outcomes for expenditure indicators, but none shows adifference between female/male recipients and female/male-headed households.EducationOverall, the available evidence highlights a clear link between cash transfer receipt and increasedschool attendance. Less evidence and a less clear-cut pattern of impact is found for learningoutcomes (as measured by test scores) and cognitive development outcomes (informationprocessing ability, intelligence, reasoning, language development and memory), although,interestingly, the three studies reporting statistically significant findings on the latter all reportimprovements in cognitive development associated with cash transfer receipt.20 studies report on the overall effect on school attendance, of which 13 report some significanteffect. With the exception of one study, the findings point towards an increase in schoolattendance and a decrease in school absenteeism. Less evidence and a less clear-cut patternof impact is found for links between cash transfer receipt and learning outcomes. Five studiesexamine overall effects on learning, as measured through test scores in maths, language or acomposite test score. Two studies find a statistically significant effect (both for language testscores), one being an improvement and one a decrease. Five studies report an effect estimate ofcognitive development scores; three of these find a statistically significant improvement.20 studies disaggregate findings by sex (either by sex of the child or head of the household),with statistically significant effects being increases in school attendance for girls and someimprovements in test scores and cognitive development, with no clear pattern in effects varying byhead of the household. Of 15 studies disaggregating effects on attendance for girls versus boys, 12report a statistically significant increase for at least one school attendance measure for girls, whileone reports a decrease. Of five studies disaggregating impacts on learning, two find significantincreases in test score results for girls, and for the five studies reporting on cognitive development,three report significant increases for girls.Chapter 1IntroductionChapter 2ConceptualframeworkChapter 3Review of cashtransfer reviewsChapter 4MethodsChapter 5The evidence baseSECTION IIChapter 6The impact ofcash transfers onmonetary povertyChapter 7The impact ofcash transfers oneducationChapter 8The impact of cashtransfers on healthand nutritionChapter 9The impact ofcash transfers onsavings, investmentand productionChapter 10The impact ofcash transfers onemploymentChapter 11The impact ofcash transfers onempowermentSECTION IIIHealth and nutritionEvidence of the impacts of cash transfers across all three indicator areas – use of health services,dietary diversity and anthropometric measures – was largely consistent in terms of direction ofeffect, showing improvements in the indicators. On the whole, the available evidence highlightshow, while the cash transfers reviewed have played an important role in increasing the use ofChapter 12Summary offindings andconclusionReferences

Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?health services and dietary diversity, changes in design or implementation features, includingcomplementary actions (e.g. nutritional supplements or behavioural change training), may berequired to achieve greater and more consistent impacts on child anthropometric measures. Thisis reflected in the greater proportion of significant results found relating to health service use anddietary diversity and a lower proportion for anthropometric measures.The available evidence shows that, on the whole, cash transfers – both CCTs and UCTs – haveincreased the uptake of health services. Of the 15 studies reporting overall effects on the use ofhealth facilities, nine report statistically significant increases. For dietary diversity, findings alsoconsistently show increases. Among the 12 studies reporting on impacts on dietary diversity,seven show statistically significant changes across a range of dietary diversity measures, allbeing improvements. Evidence of statistically significant changes in anthropometric outcomes islimited to five out of 13 studies for stunting, one out of five for wasting and one out of eight forunderweight. All significant overall changes were improvements.Evidence on how outcomes vary by sex was available from five studies. The evidence providesmixed results and highlights the importance of disaggregating by sex and age. For instance, oneset of results on child anthropometric outcomes for an Indonesian conditional transfer providesindicative findings as to the importance of the sex of the household head for such impacts, witha negative impact on child weight-for-height only found among male-headed households (WorldBank, 2011).Savings, investment and productionOverall, impacts on savings, and on livestock ownership and/or purchase, as well as use and/or purchase of agricultural inputs, are consistent in their direction of effect, with almost allstatistically significant findings highlighting positive effects of cash transfers, though these are notuniversal to all programmes or to all types of livestock and inputs. This is an important findingas, with the exception of one programme, none of the cash transfers analysed focuses explicitly onenhancing productive impacts. Impacts on borrowing, agricultural productive assets and business/enterprise are less clear-cut or are drawn from a smaller evidence base.With regard to specific findings, of the 10 studies that look at the overall effect of cash transfers onhousehold savings, half find statistically significant increases in the share of households reportingsavings (ranging from seven to 24 percentage points) or the amount of savings accumulated.Impacts on borrowing were mixed. Of the 15 studies, four report significant increases, threereport significant reductions, one reports mixed findings and the remainder are not statisticallysignificant.Of the eight studies reporting on relevant indicators of households’ accumulation of agriculturalproductive assets for crop production (axes, sickles, hoes and other agricultural tools), threefind a positive and significant impact on a wide variety of indicators. The remaining five studiesfind no significant impacts. Lack of impact is explained in several ways, including behaviourinfluenced by strong programme labelling (money was to be spent for children) and the low valueor unpredictability of the transfer. Of the eight studies reporting on agricultural inputs, six reporta significant increase in expenditure or use, primarily for fertiliser and seeds, while one reports asignificant, but small, decrease. 12 out of 17 studies assessing livestock ownership and value showa significant increase. Impacts were particularly concentrated on smaller livestock, such as goatsand chickens.Impacts on business and enterprise were mixed: of the nine studies, four find significant increasesin the share of households involved in non-farm enterprise or in total expenditure on businessrelated assets and stocks, while one finds a significant decrease.Eight studies report sex-disaggregated outcomes. Interestingly, three studies find significantimpacts for some of the savings, production and investment indicators for female-headedhouseholds, where they do not find any for male-headed households. Two studies find differenttypes of impacts for male versus female household heads or beneficiaries (e.g. different type ofPage 8ContentsAcknowledgementsExecutive summarySECTION IChapter 1IntroductionChapter 2ConceptualframeworkChapter 3Review of cashtransfer reviewsChapter 4MethodsChapter 5The evidence baseSECTION IIChapter 6The impact ofcash transfers onmonetary povertyChapter 7The impact ofcash transfers oneducationChapter 8The impact of cashtransfers on healthand nutritionChapter 9The impact ofcash transfers onsavings, investmentand productionChapter 10The impact ofcash transfers onemploymentChapter 11The impact ofcash transfers onempowermentSECTION IIIChapter 12Summary offindings andconclusionReferences

Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?investment preferred), while another two find no significant differences between men and women.Overall, these results appear to be driven by different levels of asset ownership at baseline, withwomen having lower levels and hence showing bigger improvements, and also differing culturalroles, with studies showing that women mainly acquired small livestock.EmploymentThe evidence extracted for this review shows that for just over half of studies on adult work(participation and intensity), the cash transfer does not have a statistically significant impact.Among those studies reporting a significant effect among adults of working age, the majorityfind an increase in work participation and intensity. In the cases in which a reduction in workparticipation or work intensity is reported, these reflect a reduction in participation among theelderly, those caring for dependents, or they are the result of reductions in casual work.For both adult and child work, three indicators were considered (1) whether an individual worksor does not work (adult labour force participation); (2) the time spent working (work intensity);and (3) the sector/type of employment. 14 studies report on the effect on overall adult labourforce participation: among the eight that report on adults of working age, four find statisticallysignificant impacts: three being increases and one a decrease. Among the two studies on elderlyadults, one finds a significant effect in terms of reducing pensioners working for pay. 10 studiesreport on overall adult intensity of work, with six studies showing statistically significantimpacts. Three involved reductions in time worked, though one was among the elderly. Thetwo interventions resulting in increases in time spent working resulted from enterprise grantsspecificially intended to increase employment.Studies on sector of work show that in over half of the studies cash transfers did not significantlyaffect overall participation in the specific sectors studied; there is stronger evidence, however,for cash transfers impacting on time allocation towards different activities. A total of 12 studiesestimate the impact of cash transfers on overall adult labour force participation by sector/typeof employment. Of these, five find at least one significant effect, with three finding increases inself-employment, one an increase in unpaid family work and two showing reductions in casualwork outside the household. 10 studies report the impact of cash transfers on adult work intensityin different sectors/types of employment; of these, seven report a statistically significant effect,showing a mix of impacts. Three studies report on the impact on migration, with findingsshowing that cash transfers can either increase or decrease the probability of migrating internallyor internationally.The evidence extracted shows some differential effects for men and women for labour forceparticipation and work intensity. One of the main emerging themes around gendered effects relatesto changes in time allocation to different activities, with a few studies finding an increase in timespent on domestic work by women. In particular, out of six papers analysing the impact of cashtransfers on the number of hours worked by women by sector/type of employment, three find atleast one statistically significant result, with two studies from Latin America finding an increase intime spent on domestic work by women (alongside a reduction in time spent on domestic chores byyounger girls).With regard to child labour, over half of the studies on cash transfer–child work participationlinks find no statistically significant result, while all the studies on child work intensity findstatistically significant reductions in time spent working. Importantly, all the studies reporting astatistically significant result for whether a child is working/not working find a clear reductionin child labour associated with cash transfer receipt. Moreover, the vast majority of estimates instudies reporting non-statistically significant results on child work participation rates display anegative coefficient. It is interesting to note here, too, that the significant reductions in recordedchild labour are driven by programmes in Latin America (with the addition of one programmein Indonesia and one in Morocco), and that none of the studies reporting on a cash transferprogramme in sub-Saharan Africa finds a significant impact.Page 9ContentsAcknowledgementsExecutive summarySECTION IChapter 1IntroductionChapter 2ConceptualframeworkChapter 3Review of cashtransfer reviewsChapter 4MethodsChapter 5The evidence baseSECTION IIChapter 6The impact ofcash transfers onmonetary povertyChapter 7The impact ofcash transfers oneducationChapter 8The impact of cashtransfers on healthand nutritionChapter 9The impact ofcash transfers onsavings, investmentand productionChapter 10The impact ofcash transfers onemploymentChapter 11The impact ofcash transfers onempowermentSECTION IIIChapter 12Summary offindings andconclusionReferences

Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?More specifically, a total of 19 studies report cash transfer impacts on child labour forceparticipation. Of the eight studies that find any significant impact, all show a decrease in childlabour. In terms of child labour participation by sub-sector, of the eight studies, five reportsignificant results, indicating reductions in various forms of market work, domestic work, ownfarm work, and one shift from physical labour to non-physical labour. Five studies report on theimpacts on the intensity of overall child labour. All find statistically significant reductions in thenumber of hours spent working, with reductions ranging from 0.3 fewer hours a week to 2.5fewer hours a week. Four studies repor

5.2 Studies included in the review 76 SECTION II 85 Chapter 6 The impact of cash transfers on monetary poverty 86 6.1 Summary of findings 88 . This is a rigorous literature review, which complies with core systematic review principles - breadth, rigour and transparency - while allowing for a more flexible handling of retrieval and .