The Household and Individual‐Level Productive Impacts of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub‐Saharan Africa

The objective of most cash transfer programs is to alleviate poverty and/or food insecurity directly and through improvements in educational, health, and nutritional status (Fiszbein et al. 2009; Slater 2011). As these programs are key components of social protection strategies, understanding their impact on social outcomes is critical and a large body of literature has emerged on the social impacts of cash transfers focusing primarily on the health, nutrition, and schooling of the children of the poor (Fiszbein et al. 2009; Adato and Hoddinott 2010; Handa et al. 2010). Cash transfers may also have productive impacts, a dimension that only recently has started to receive explicit attention in the literature (Banerjee et al. 2015; Haushofer and Shapiro 2016; Tirivayi, Knowles, and Davis 2016; Hidrobo et al. 2018). If markets function perfectly, the expectation is that providing cash to poor households should have no impact on productive activities since production and consumption are separable (Singh, Squire, and Strauss 1986). However, in the presence of credit, insurance, labor, and other market constraints, the provision of cash may help overcome market failures, leading to greater productive investment and spending, and potentially creating a household-level multiplier effect. Along with shifting investment and spending, cash may also lead to a reallocation of household resources, particularly labor. A relatively small number of papers have sought to address these productive impacts of cash transfers, including Boone et al. (2013) and Covarrubias, Davis, and Winters (2012) for Malawi, Gertler, Martinez, and Rubio-Codina (2012) and Todd, Winters, and Hertz (2010) for Mexico, Veras Soares, Perez Ribas, and Hirata (2010) for Paraguay, and Maluccio (2010) for Nicaragua. However, none collected data with the primary purpose of examining productive impacts and are thus limited in what they can analyze. Understanding the productive impacts of cash transfers is important from a policy perspective, as governments often voice concerns about “dependency” when considering cash transfers. First, there is a concern that providing cash to the poor leads them to work less and to rely on the transfers. An analysis of resource use, particularly labor use, and the productive impacts of cash transfers then provides insights into whether, in the short to medium term, cash transfers induce households to reduce their productive activities or to increase them. Second, there is interest regarding whether over the medium term a cash transfer program could induce households or individuals to transition out of poverty and to “graduate” from a program (Daidone et al. 2015). Of course, given the focus on often very poor households, as well as on breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty through improved child outcomes, such an expectation may be unrealistic. But assessing the economic impact of cash transfers can at least determine if transfers are consistent with increased productive engagement and asset accumulation. This article brings together evidence from seven experimental and non-experimental impact evaluations of government-run unconditional cash transfer programs in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The unique focus on productive impacts of cash transfer programs was introduced into these evaluations by the From to of the a and and of to and from impact evaluations of cash transfer programs in article to the literature by evidence from evaluations with outcomes and focusing on seven large government-run unconditional cash transfers in a of program and less in the the of households and individuals to and to about impacts on productive labor and If markets function perfectly, the provision of cash should have no impact on household with to that no labor, credit, or other market are to be to labor at the at the interest and and or at given market are to the such production and consumption can be as in that households from production and then the from these to from consumption (Singh, Squire, and Strauss 1986). A cash transfer should consumption by a households in the of often or markets in a number of markets are by leads to and households often have to a of and often to or et al. markets for to with are also by of and in for of the evidence that only is and As households with often through such as or other or of and may the for the labor is particularly in are and is to labor The to labor can and an to labor, thus and labor food of for and the to market to and creating a the and in markets can the households the market and If market as the production and consumption of households can be as in the that they are (Singh, Squire, and Strauss 1986). The of to is what be the most what that households have food to may in labor markets is the to labor, to to or as a to of market and thus an of cash into a household can household Cash provides to the of and for productive investment that production households, cash transfers can the and the of production in et al. and directly by by the of the is to a of can be if cash transfers for households to and consumption that and should be on for and be by However, in the presence of and may from the on their and households may to or reduce and other as they rely on the transfers as a of and Cash transfers an increase in the household and work less to However, cash transfers may lead to in labor First, the of may be for very poor households, are the of the cash transfer program (Fiszbein et al. Second, the cash transfer may other such as from when the for transfers are on and in the presence of market such as to work and constraints, an increase in can help overcome these and into increased labor and 2010). their labor be the only for household to and their consumption or investment The of these an whether, and to what a given of the labor of and work of to labor, the of cash transfers on child work be a Cash transfers may child labor by the to or by the to child labor (Fiszbein et al. 2009; and If the child to as a of the the to the child for and for in activities is if the transfer the of the and child labor should However, if the household the transfer in productive the to child work may the and in increased child labor. the and provision of resources, cash transfer programs can as they may to and This strategies, such as of productive or children out of cash transfers may production through to from leads them to for less in also of household cash transfers can have an on and thus on their production and et al. the that are by cash transfers may reduce of to may in an increase in production through an increase in through increased or cash transfers may lead to in investment such as and improved The and of a cash transfer program has an on productive is as the of the household to through productive for to of for individuals may as a to in and that individuals less and from in are also to and/or with a et al. that could have a impact on consumption the impact potentially if is to the Haushofer and Shapiro the of transfers that if households are and of transfer the from their transfer to the and the from the of the transfer and Shapiro of a may be to into a large if they are they can their consumption and may only outcomes also investment and labor market transfers can investment transfers that are small to the food consumption of households are to about such et al. that the of the transfer may the of may be for and for and to labor and and (2010) that and the labor of households have an for of the cash households by the of labor, a critical of cash they reduce labor a also by et al. A key of a is the of as the determine the and of if a individuals are for a program are in of a providing cash to may be an to transfer and and et al. cash transfer programs limited labor the impact of cash transfers on production may be or a reallocation of labor to labor or a in the household from activities to other that labor. in may be to in to in with less or in activities may have a of program may also productive The literature on that households may to on has of the a household If transfers is to be if transfers household If transfers to household with consumption or interest in a productive may be in a explicit on transfers, the the transfers from the and with or can they are and often as may when are in that on the of the transfers, or when are in to the of the transfer et al. individuals to on to they from for of The of transfers can then on these and to or other they these transfers to of spending, including productive transfer is from as an and a effect. The with a number of to of the The impact on household and activities is over a number of The of a and/or should lead to a impact on economic including and other The of labor should lead to greater productive households may have a since to be a of including credit, et al. et al. 2015). households may also be with less labor. The of and/or activities in a given economic is If production is the of for then the impact on outcomes could be as households into other and with and on can be to be if cash transfers households to a asset at a of and The impact on could be if the cash by and or if a consumption and of is a in is also the social the greater the of impacts on social outcomes et al. and impact on could the or and/or markets reduce the impact on The in the of the impact of cash transfer programs on labor labor is an of labor, in the most of these programs are is a and The impact on and labor be a the economic is and then a If and/or the is also a then the cash transfer could lead to a in in these A to child labor. labor is also an of and the program to lead to a However, the impact on child labor could in on the of as well the increased for labor given in household This impact is on the of household labor in the labor, the less child labor be as well as the of the program and impacts on child The in the of impact on credit, and programs impacts on credit, in that cash transfers can as for or at least a of improved to But the of in most of the in these programs is of a with very interest and only as an of the programs could lead to a in households a in the number of The impact on be a social protection can reduce by the for through the provision of a for consumption and if rely on children for in then on children may as a for that households with children less and However, the if households transfers as their can increase The impact on should be of cash should reduce the that to with at the of the of impacts of social cash transfers on transfers and From a perspective, the impact on of transfers could be or If transfers are by on the of an increase in social transfers by a household may lead to a in transfers, or a the if transfers are of an explicit or or they may the or increase as a of an increase in social transfers and The of the seven government-run cash transfer programs in article can be in of the programs cash explicit on their in there is or other in of and children are to the children and they are in these are the transfer is with on the of and et al. the of the an cash the was with the of production in to a The in these programs to very poor households with limited of labor. and households with and most programs households that are as or that are to be by the in they are by or The of the Cash is an for households with children in a and has the of to with relatively a as to children households with in of with with household transfer for child most for child in primary or most for child for for for for in primary for in The of can be from the of the for the of the seven programs in the there are a large number of children in the from to a large of and and very household The other a of and a of children and The of the transfer to household or and the of the of transfers may The in was the most transfer for the at of household consumption at of the other programs providing and of household with the of at the the the for transfer the and the governments increased the of the in the increase was to the of a the by household for households the transfer of the from to for large and small households, transfers are to be on a is what in the transfers the with only in for and the with with large to the The objective of an impact is to an impact to a program the of a household if a an impact is a data and a of the as as to the to a for data a are as the to a and 2010; et al. 2011). the of of into the programs and households in or the program are and the in they receive the program is The is at the or to from to the of the for Malawi, and was to the et al. et al. Handa et al. and for of the in these However, experimental are to in for and particularly when programs are by the of the program in an was to of the and a was data collected from of a of households as of a by the for and of the of and in the of A of households was from the and with to in outcomes and The the for to the experimental as by and Handa and et al. and as a of was from of was collected in the in the and and data to for and over The on the other was the to from the that on the of given unique This and was by to the of and analysis of the are in the and 2011). the of the Cash program cash transfer households from with households in that to receive the transfers the of the The in the of a non-experimental for the of a was the policy of the that households be a the the and by and in in the to households in the in the and the to and households in the are that are for the program and that at a are thus a for in of the Cash in was given the of the The from the that was to and households from A was in the analysis et al. 2015). the of a the analysis in a of and households of on for assessing impact on key to the of the and or of data to provides an of the of the when the and of data also the for the when to for the of to of households and in a data only at a or a or a of the such as the can including of the and or to only potentially lead to less of program impacts to can also to if the and in the of individuals the of the programs and to for in the the of was particularly et al. that there in the to the the and for small at the and households to the in for no in However, evidence of for out of at the of households that in the and the households in the and Malawi, the was and Handa et al. no household the was and at in and However, (2012) that is with and other such as household of the a of the activities and of the household for the and the in the cash transfer programs with of given the of the of are in activities and work for The of households to or production is in with the of and and A of households from the in of households are in small such as the of labor is households rely on of cash and transfers, from and to household has to a in and and for there are the non-experimental of the the household to and for et al. Handa et al. the is from the of program households are very unique and the was a households in the in the with and to be and are since from the households in the at was the of households on of household that was in was in household for these with a and is a for This for the in a that cash transfers have household-level productive as of are and labor of and and other and the of in and to the the of have to the with data A of most is in the as to the at in to The in the focus on As and about the of a social program should on the and as in of the the impact of the program may be on a number of of analysis is out by of household and transfer when the transfer is household and labor Malawi, and and by in to the most of with are in to by at a This the by in to are as to the at the and are as the impact of the cash transfer programs on of as by a of households and and a of production consistent with a in as a of the in This in is with in consumption and the by from an of the to a increase in and The is at least to of and This increase in production into of for a small increase in of impact the large and impact on the of is by households, the impacts on are for and et al. of by the labor for to for households with labor are also to be in households from such as to and and of production for in other a in in the of production increased by by production of in of the of production increased by and Malawi, the impacts of the cash transfers on production are for households of production in is a of the and that households Malawi, the impacts on are by greater in the of the impacts on production is relatively in is a increased by by impacts are by the of households in is the most important in the as a that the impact on to impacts on the of are in in the analysis was also to other to the of the and Davis the impacts of the on by and provides improved and for is that the to for is the most important in Malawi, also the impact on the of production is for to are as they social protection and The impacts in and on the other are and shifting from to are consistent with from programs have large on the of households in and the number of of in and limited are in and the impact is on small and for the is on impact was in and and out of production is in a of impacts, also in of the in Malawi, to in in impacts on small for small households and in for households, as to what is in in households to in households with labor in the impact of the cash transfer programs on of cash households should potentially be to the of if is a economic and are with the on impact is most in cash transfers increase the of households by as well as the of increased by are in to the as in The to a and a increase in the of households and An increase in the of was also is a to an The increase in could also have by the the impacts on and are by households, for no impact was the to an increase in a by households, also the of labor. on the other on a from a in the of households improved and an increase in the of households increase the of households increase labor and out of the of is of that investment in for households such as with of impacts on the of households and/or in Malawi, the of increased for by The impacts on by and by in no impacts have on a in to use, in the about large in to of the of households increased by for households and the on use, in by and Malawi, in or The cash transfer program in in for the of households and the number of impacts are for other impacts are often to an increase in in Malawi, and in and in the program in to an increase in an there was a in of and is at in and impacts for these impacts on and are with by programs and by and only consistent with from and with the of and these into greater The impacts of cash transfers on labor are in labor and with of labor Cash transfers to a in labor in and these labor and activities in are often a poor households work to or A in and in these activities is of improved economic the that in labor is by of on and by in and the other an increase in on their on labor be and activities and are Malawi, the in labor was for less and less in the and was by labor or work in analysis in also when by are to work particularly in and are less a in the number of in for was small in and a in labor, and by of in a in the number of in the This is particularly in in households to the engagement of children in work in in and for children in and for in to labor, with a in labor for in and an increase in the number of by in However, the the are in in increase in and on other and is The cash transfer programs in and to in the impact is large in on the of households a and on the of these in and for cash transfer to the the impacts are in with in the of households of The impact of the on is by and for households that and other of transfers, to from transfers the from and/or increased by of in the to other transfers, impacts, food transfers and from the are consistent with the that are to the transfers the are to impact that households are to and strategies, data collected and to the analysis on only a in Malawi, households from of to households, a in the of households less to children out of and and in less to them to work or to and the of by and cash transfers in and to a of and and in and/or the relatively of most in these and the and in the of households could the of households that are of the and of the that greater investment in activities in only in The analysis at the household and for the impact of cash transfer program on the of and programs and of that are examining the impacts on a large of outcomes in to in in the other outcomes that in This of as of the may be to with outcomes, is to them into or of outcomes, and whether the impact of the on is from and et al. 2015). However, these can be and are in outcomes they about the of that to the of or have for the or is to the and to for the This has over other on the has to with the if the number of is large for is less as for other such as are on the of This is to be the in are for the outcomes for impact are at the when and them with and of outcomes, the of the If for at the of is that the about a increase in However, impact on should be with as be by to be a of The of for in that if to for an the in at least large be of the As in the most as the number of impact from to considering of the less of for the of the impacts for the and are the by the for the the on for on less impacts on social and in on the that the seven cash transfer programs have on productive activities in the as well as The program in a of impacts productive outcomes, the other programs The as to the that cash transfer programs to have a on and productive The of large for the of households The of labor in to the in productive impacts households may in labor and out limited economic households with labor are in a to of the cash for productive activities in the short and The of to a household is a in the and of impacts on productive with the the most consistent of productive impacts, the the least consistent The and of cash transfers are also the of their from to in the transfers the in also to be the The was the program with the least was also by and to regarding the of the also the of The on the on analysis large impacts on food and on and the in to the data a was to cash with the to increase production in to a that the the The could the of the the that cash an impact on of the outcomes in for on or on The of the is a critical dimension in the in was to a very the only the only is to to that programs in of program for The for a when households have of transfers. However, to the in the of the the was at households have This article brings together the critical of evidence that has emerged from impact evaluations of government-run cash transfer programs in that cash transfers can have impacts on the of households, particularly with to they from to and to the program a leading to a engagement of households in investment and for production and economic The impacts in Malawi, and in the program in impacts on productive and on of most have a in the of labor, is often as a to poor households work to or and in labor has by an increase in labor, and in also in is no evidence that cash transfers into an of labor or work the the transfers to household The cash transfers to a of households in and on of in and impacts on small in and and on in to cash and transfers and a by the cash transfers. impacts on transfers and the food and are consistent with the that emerged from regarding the of with social of et al. in other to The cash transfer programs in and and to a in Malawi, about and impacts on production through greater and/or However, in other are cash transfer programs increased in and impacts in the other on the engagement of children in work activities are also The in impacts can be to a of including the of labor given the of households and program and The of transfers, the of and the of with the to be critical that can be by program to economic that are by may be on productive and at the can consumption of a if to production and as should in production and to food the The of the transfer is if cash is to have productive impacts, transfers be large to households to consumption The and most consistent impacts are in the labor large and and a economic the key household-level to be cash transfer programs have for these to be to households out of households in in the of labor markets are for their through household and in of Cash transfers and other social protection have at and in consumption and as have in of the market by the from the However, cash transfers address of these for can in by that social protection address and that poor to and resources, and programs can help households The is to the productive of households, in the and the of the and social protection programs are to the of the poor and and are at of The is for the or of by the should be to the for the