Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Bruno Yawe
(Makerere University)
Lutengano Mwinuka (The University of Dodoma)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Bruno Yawe
(Makerere University)
- Format:
- Panel
- Streams:
- Economy and Development (x) Inequality (y)
- Location:
- Neues Seminargebäude, Seminarraum 26
- Sessions:
- Saturday 3 June, -
Time zone: Europe/Berlin
Short Abstract:
This panel explores the cost and impact of privately and publicly managed social cash-transfer projects. We are interested in methodological and empirical contributions that explore cost and the impact (the cost-effectiveness) of different kinds of social cash-transfer projects and programs.
Long Abstract:
Social cash transfer programs have expanded in Africa over the last decade as a lead social protection initiative tackling poverty and vulnerability. Existing evidence shows that cash transfers have various beneficial effects on food, health, education, livelihoods and gender relations, but we know very little about how costly they are and what their cost-efficiency rates are. While social cash transfers are, made through publicly managed projects and programs, non-state or privately managed cash-transfer projects of all sizes have nonetheless also expanded considerably over the last ten years. For example, 40% of humanitarian aid is, provided in different forms of cash-like modalities (e-cash, vouchers, bank transfers etc.). In this panel, we attempt to explore how the cost of privately managed cash-transfer projects can be, related to their impact in order to make possible a meaningful cost-effectiveness analysis. Key panel questions include: (i) How can cost and cost-effectiveness be measured for privately managed cash-transfer projects? (ii) How do they differ from publicly managed cash-transfer projects? (iii) How cost-effective are privately managed cash-transfer projects in disbursing cash compared to publicly managed projects? (iv) Is small always beautiful? (v) How can we build on ex-ante or ex-post assessment to inform cash transfer project design for impact? and (vi) What are the short- and long-term impacts (effectiveness) of privately managed programs on, for example, sustainable inclusive economic growth? We invite papers from all disciplines and from the African region exploring the following dimensions of social cash transfers: cost-efficiency and socioeconomic impact on poverty.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Saturday 3 June, 2023, -Sikanyiso Masuku (University of Cape Town) Abigail Benhura (Women's University in Africa) Lena Sophia Gronbach (University of Cape Town)
Paper short abstract:
What role do mutual assistance networks (reciprocated forms of assistance) play in curtailing the risks arising from an absence of centralized social protection programs and how is the knowledge of other exogenous forms of reprieve (emergency relief) localized in Zimbabwe.
Paper long abstract:
This study examined the role of networks and reciprocated assistance in curtailing the risk arising from an absence of centralized social protection programs. Given how non-state interventions constitute a key part of the endogenous networks to social risk reduction, we also explored how the knowledge of exogenous emergency relief is localized and utilized. In examining these issues, in-depth interviews were done with a purposively selected sample of informal workers, their representative associations and development partners. Amongst other factors, the findings showed that (i) informal mutual assistance networks are more adaptive, responsive, inclusive and thus more preferred over exogenous relief – with complementarity between the two being low (ii) ex-post bereavement mutual assistance networks have stronger ties with a more versatile, knowledge sharing centered utility that transcends the circulation/sharing of cash, food, and credit. The findings not only contribute to the scholarship on social welfare rights but also networks in the context of reciprocated assistance and emergency relief.
Gerald Mwakipesile (Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Tanzania) Raphael Macha (The University of Dodoma) Lutengano Mwinuka (The University of Dodoma) Rehema Kilonzo (The University of Dodoma)
Paper short abstract:
High dependency on climate-sensitive activities has made farmers in sub-Saharan African countries more vulnerable to climate change impacts. The study offers expert-based ex-ante analysis results from ScalA-FS tool learning from short-term integrated cash transfer programme in northern Tanzania.
Paper long abstract:
High dependency on climate-sensitive activities for income and food consumption has made rural farmers in sub-Saharan African countries more vulnerable to climate change and variability impacts. Changes in ago-ecological conditions directly affects food security through decreased agricultural productivity, reduction of natural resources and reduced distribution of incomes among farming households. In order to protect rural livelihoods, African governments and programmes are increasingly implementing policies and interventions that deter climate change adverse effects to safeguard the lives of the extreme poor. We conducted an expert-based ex-ante analysis using ScalA-FS tool on the Tanzania Red Cross Society (TRCS) short-term integrated cash transfer programme in northern Tanzania to ascertain if the programme supports good farming practices with regards to social, ecological and economic sustainability, climate change responsiveness and has potential for scaling-up. Findings revealed that, the TRCS programme supports good farming practices which improve household’s income and food security through provision of cash transfers and improvement of biodiversity through training on efficient and effective livestock, pasture and manure management. Also, findings suggests that, the TRCS programme design enhances community’s adaptive and resilience capacity to climate change through capacity building interventions on farm and specie diversification, rotational grazing, separating pastures and de-stocking practices amid drought and dry spells. Further, findings suggest high potential of scaling-up the programme to enhance long-term food security in drought prone areas.
Raphael Macha (The University of Dodoma) Vincent Leyaro (University of Dar es Salaam) Josephat Hongoli (University of Dar es Salaam) ISMAIL SALEHE
Paper short abstract:
People with disability are impoverished as they are a disadvantaged group. This study employs TAZMOD microsimulations to analyse the impact of the disability grant on welfare indicators and found positive impact. The government will require up to 0.05% of GDP to finance the cash transfer program.
Paper long abstract:
People with disability are impoverished as they are disadvantaged across a wide range of socioeconomic indicators. Recent statistics indicated that 9.3 % of people aged 7 years and above in Tanzania have some sort of disability. There is limited evidence on the implication of social protection to this segment of population to welfare indicators and government spending. About 55,000 Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) households benefit from the disability grant; which is only 40 % of all targeted households. However, a significant proportion of disabled are living in non-targeted TASAF households. This study presents a discussion of the implications of upscaling disability grants to all people with severe disabilities on poverty, income inequality and government expenditure in Tanzania. The analysis is based on Tanzania tax-benefit microsimulation model (TAZMOD) using 2017/18 Household Budget Survey (HBS) data updated for a 2022 system. Consistent with disability grant programs from other sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, the results from the simulation show that disability grants will reduce the poverty rate by 1.3 to 2.1% with minimal effect on inequality. The impact on poverty is higher for households with older people and those headed by women compared to otherwise. With regard to income inequality, the cash transfer to people with disability will reduce inequality for those on the lower quantile. The government budget needed to finance the program will range from 8.9 to 79 billion Tanzanian shillings annually (equivalent to 0.006% to 0.05% of GDP), respectively. Financing options for the program are further analysed in the paper.
Bruno Yawe (Makerere University) Raphael Macha (The University of Dodoma) Lutengano Mwinuka (The University of Dodoma)
Paper short abstract:
An increasing number of governments and private sector organizations are switching to innovative mechanisms to deliver cash transfers. This paper will explore the adoption of delivery mechanisms of cash transfers and link them to the cost of cash transfers for organizations in Tanzania and Uganda.
Paper long abstract:
An increasing number of governments and private sector organizations are switching to innovative mechanisms for the delivery cash transfer payments. Organizations do so in order to reduce costs and leakage, as well as promoting financial inclusion of the poor. This paper will explore the adoption of various delivery mechanisms of cash transfers and link them to the cost of cash transfers for organizations in Tanzania and Uganda. The paper argues the deployment of technology in the delivery of cash transfers reduces the average cost of delivery especially with a sizable number of recipients. The paper is based on administrative cost data. Cost-efficiency analysis will be done after programme operations (ex-post), to review how much was actually spent. Cost-efficiency analysis will pose the following question: How much did it cost to run the programme? It permits accountability for spending, without needing to take into account what result was achieved for the money. Whilst reviewing cash transfer programmes the cost will be divided into two: the value of the transfer disbursed to beneficiaries, and the amount spent in delivering that transfer to them. This means that we can say, 'This programme spent [$X] to deliver [$Y] in cash to beneficiaries'.
ELIZABETH NYAKI (The University of Dodoma)
Paper short abstract:
Evidences of cost evaluations manual are limited in cash transfer programmes (CTPs). Most CTPs implement multiple projects with the same manpower. This may overestimate reported costs if appropriate skills are missing. This paper provides a roadmap for undertaking cost evaluation in CTPs
Paper long abstract:
The major goal of cash transfer programmes (CTPs) is poverty reduction and social protection assurance. The foremost public outcry towards these programmes is significant portion of their budgets never reaches the intended beneficiaries but is absorbed in delivery costs. Yet, there is little empirical evidence that guide researchers on conducting cost analysis studies in CTPs. Cost data provides evidence based advocacy to program implementers and donor agencies regarding program scale-up decisions, setting priorities, program planning and choosing efficiency delivery mechanisms. Studies, though limited, are more focused on humanitarian than developmental projects with scant evidence existing on the general framework guide for estimating costs. There is an on-going controversial debate on which costs should be included in costing calculations. Similarly, there is an argument that cost studies suffer from insufficient data and incorrect estimations, due to lack of appropriate skills for capturing cost information and majority of cost evaluators are perceived to be auditors. This paper serves as a framework for undertaking cost analysis in CTPs by contributing on the associated methodologies and approach. The paper also argues that the best approach of conducting cost analysis is through cash transfer pathways which involve tracking all activities from when the money gets into suppliers to when it gets in recipients pockets. However, the type of cost analysis to use differs based on program design and objectives. This paper which was based on systematic review, will be useful to the programme implementers and researchers interested in evaluating cost effectiveness or cost efficiency of the CTPs