Paper short abstract:

This paper examines the interaction of national level policy decisions and local level implementation, leading to contestation and policy change through direct channels. Social and political acceptability can thereby over-ride evidence-based policy decisions, influencing social protection design.

Paper long abstract:

The adoption of the social cash transfer (SCT) programme in Zambia has been shaped by the efforts of a transnationalised policy coalition aligning with the interests and ideas of a new ruling coalition.

In search of a national targeting strategy, a harmonised methodology was developed aiming to reach the poorest of the poor. This was based on recommendations from an OPM report and approved by the policy coalition. However, when it hit the ground it caused many complaints in communities. Intervention by the Minister of Community Development escalated this situation, and as a result the perception of 'undeserving' recipients was considered a political risk which could harm the image of the programme when it was not yet fully established.

Control of neediness has emerged as being the most important criteria of deservingness and at an 'experts' workshop the decision was made to replace the dependency ratio with categories of households. The question being asked by the policy coalition is no longer how do we reach the poorest but who do we not want to exclude?

Framed by technocrats as 'lessons learned', these changes reflect the ways in which social and political acceptability influences the type of social protection provided. The move towards a categorical approach is a policy choice rather than a targeting methodology. However, this change has not been brought about through rational choice models of voting behaviour but through direct channels of contestation facilitated by political pressure, even in the absence of accountability structures within communities.