Over 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated by several actors, and for good reasons: they have the potential to provide choice, empower people, and spark economic multipliers. But what is their comparative performance relative to in-kind transfers? Are there objectives for which there are particular evidence gaps? And what should be considered when choosing between those forms of assistance? This paper is one of the first reviews examining those questions across humanitarian sectors and in relation to multiple forms of assistance, including cash, vouchers, and in-kind assistance (food and non-food). These were assessed based on solid impact evaluations and through the lens of food security, nutrition, livelihoods, health, education, and shelter objectives. The paper finds that there is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. This ranges from areas where evidence is substantial (i.e., food security) to realms where it is limited (i.e., nutrition) or where not a single comparative evaluation was available (i.e., health, education, and shelter). Where evidence is substantial, data shows that the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average. In terms of costs, cash is generally more efficient to delivery. However, overall costs would hinge on the scale of interventions, crisis context, procurement practices, and a range of ‘hidden costs’. In other words, the appropriateness of transfers cannot be predetermined and should emerge from response analysis that considers program objectives, the level of market functionality, predicted cost-effectiveness, implementation capacity, the management of key risks such as on protection and gender, political economy, beneficiary preferences, and resource availability. Finally, it seems possible (and necessary) to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with solid research to inform decision-making, especially on dimensions beyond food security.
Every country provides some form of direct cash transfer to people in need, and this provision of money reaches hundreds of millions of people worldwide. But these provisions are often accompanied by heated debates on whether and how such assistance should be provided. Seeking a way to better understand the current global debates on cash transfers, Timely Cash provides a historical overview of the concept. It explores the 2,500-year history of cash transfers to trace the origins of cash transfer programmes, tracks how they have evolved over time and spread across the world, and considers the longstanding debates that surround them. By connecting these historical perspectives with the present day, identifying reoccurring patterns, and codifying diversity in experiences, Ugo Gentilini illuminates the roots of modern cash transfer dilemmas and reveals the surprising lessons the past can offer for these contemporary debates.
Socially inclusive growth is the talk of the town in developing countries. But to go from talk to walk these countries face a critical task: reconstructing their welfare states given the failures of the standard Bismarckian model and the challenges posed by rapid technological change. This book—known to many as the White Paper—is indispensable for tackling this task. It develops a clear conceptual framework to help policy makers understand this complex issue, set clear objectives, evaluate trade-offs, and chart a coherent path of reform. A much-needed and very welcome contribution." --Santiago Levy, Senior Fellow—Global Economy and Development, Brookings Economic and Social Policy in Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution "Most countries have failed to support people adequately as the combination of globalization and technology changes the structure of their economies and their jobs. This has fostered a backlash in which economic insecurity is widespread and support for populist policies is on the rise. We can do much better than this by sharing risks and providing a guaranteed minimum to everyone. This important book lays out a set of policies that strikes a new balance between economic flexibility and individual security that is relevant to both advanced and developing countries." --Minouche Shafik, Director, London School of Economics and Political Science "Economic insecurity confronts working people around the world today. To overcome this insecurity through suitable risk-sharing interventions is a policy challenge of the first order. This exceptionally thoughtful and clearly written book charts a course for replacing employment-based risk-sharing policies with social insurance†“based ones, financed by general revenues with the broadest possible base. The resultant Flexicurity model promises 'a more robust and resilient policy response to a diverse and fluid world of work.' " --Gary Fields, Professor of International and Comparative Labor and Professor of Economics, Cornell University "Protecting All presents thoughtful, thorough, and bold proposals to achieve universal social protection in a modern welfare state. This lucid document identifies implementable policies for poverty prevention, coping with livelihood shocks, and managing labor market risks that range from state-guaranteed publicly funded income floors to mandated consumption-smoothing mechanisms funded by individual contributions to privately financed incentivized and purely voluntary consumption-smoothing schemes. Clearly written, rich with ideas, and relevant for countries at all income levels, Protecting All is bound to become an essential reference for policy makers and policy analysts focused on (re)designing social protection systems that achieve key social goals in ways consistent with fast-changing labor markets, fiscal sustainability, and economic efficiency and growth." --Nora Lustig, Professor of Latin American Economics and Director of the Commitment to Equity Institute, Tulane University
Over 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated by several actors, and for good reasons: they have the potential to provide choice, empower people, and spark economic multipliers. But what is their comparative performance relative to in-kind transfers? Are there objectives for which there are particular evidence gaps? And what should be considered when choosing between those forms of assistance? This paper is one of the first reviews examining those questions across humanitarian sectors and in relation to multiple forms of assistance, including cash, vouchers, and in-kind assistance (food and non-food). These were assessed based on solid impact evaluations and through the lens of food security, nutrition, livelihoods, health, education, and shelter objectives. The paper finds that there is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. This ranges from areas where evidence is substantial (i.e., food security) to realms where it is limited (i.e., nutrition) or where not a single comparative evaluation was available (i.e., health, education, and shelter). Where evidence is substantial, data shows that the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average. In terms of costs, cash is generally more efficient to delivery. However, overall costs would hinge on the scale of interventions, crisis context, procurement practices, and a range of ‘hidden costs’. In other words, the appropriateness of transfers cannot be predetermined and should emerge from response analysis that considers program objectives, the level of market functionality, predicted cost-effectiveness, implementation capacity, the management of key risks such as on protection and gender, political economy, beneficiary preferences, and resource availability. Finally, it seems possible (and necessary) to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with solid research to inform decision-making, especially on dimensions beyond food security.
Adaptive social protection (ASP) helps to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households to the impacts of large, covariate shocks, such as natural disasters, economic crises, pandemics, conflict, and forced displacement. Through the provision of transfers and services directly to these households, ASP supports their capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to the shocks they face—before, during, and after these shocks occur. Over the long term, by supporting these three capacities, ASP can provide a pathway to a more resilient state for households that may otherwise lack the resources to move out of chronically vulnerable situations. Adaptive Social Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks outlines an organizing framework for the design and implementation of ASP, providing insights into the ways in which social protection systems can be made more capable of building household resilience. By way of its four building blocks—programs, information, finance, and institutional arrangements and partnerships—the framework highlights both the elements of existing social protection systems that are the cornerstones for building household resilience, as well as the additional investments that are central to enhancing their ability to generate these outcomes. In this report, the ASP framework and its building blocks have been elaborated primarily in relation to natural disasters and associated climate change. Nevertheless, many of the priorities identified within each building block are also pertinent to the design and implementation of ASP across other types of shocks, providing a foundation for a structured approach to the advancement of this rapidly evolving and complex agenda.
Socially inclusive growth is the talk of the town in developing countries. But to go from talk to walk these countries face a critical task: reconstructing their welfare states given the failures of the standard Bismarckian model and the challenges posed by rapid technological change. This book—known to many as the White Paper—is indispensable for tackling this task. It develops a clear conceptual framework to help policy makers understand this complex issue, set clear objectives, evaluate trade-offs, and chart a coherent path of reform. A much-needed and very welcome contribution." --Santiago Levy, Senior Fellow—Global Economy and Development, Brookings Economic and Social Policy in Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution "Most countries have failed to support people adequately as the combination of globalization and technology changes the structure of their economies and their jobs. This has fostered a backlash in which economic insecurity is widespread and support for populist policies is on the rise. We can do much better than this by sharing risks and providing a guaranteed minimum to everyone. This important book lays out a set of policies that strikes a new balance between economic flexibility and individual security that is relevant to both advanced and developing countries." --Minouche Shafik, Director, London School of Economics and Political Science "Economic insecurity confronts working people around the world today. To overcome this insecurity through suitable risk-sharing interventions is a policy challenge of the first order. This exceptionally thoughtful and clearly written book charts a course for replacing employment-based risk-sharing policies with social insurance†“based ones, financed by general revenues with the broadest possible base. The resultant Flexicurity model promises 'a more robust and resilient policy response to a diverse and fluid world of work.' " --Gary Fields, Professor of International and Comparative Labor and Professor of Economics, Cornell University "Protecting All presents thoughtful, thorough, and bold proposals to achieve universal social protection in a modern welfare state. This lucid document identifies implementable policies for poverty prevention, coping with livelihood shocks, and managing labor market risks that range from state-guaranteed publicly funded income floors to mandated consumption-smoothing mechanisms funded by individual contributions to privately financed incentivized and purely voluntary consumption-smoothing schemes. Clearly written, rich with ideas, and relevant for countries at all income levels, Protecting All is bound to become an essential reference for policy makers and policy analysts focused on (re)designing social protection systems that achieve key social goals in ways consistent with fast-changing labor markets, fiscal sustainability, and economic efficiency and growth." --Nora Lustig, Professor of Latin American Economics and Director of the Commitment to Equity Institute, Tulane University
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.