What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to identify which payment method—cash or food transfers—improves socio-economic status among public works programme participants.

May 25, 2026Open Access

Rewarding participants in public works programmes: cash or food transfers?

Key Points

The study aims to identify which payment method—cash or food transfers—improves socio-economic status among public works programme participants.
Analyzed outcomes of cash versus food transfers in the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) Phase 2.
Study conducted between 2009 and 2014 in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN).
Evaluated socio-economic impacts on programme beneficiaries.
Cash transfers led to a greater improvement in socio-economic status compared to food transfers among beneficiaries.
Participants receiving cash demonstrated higher levels of satisfaction and financial stability than those receiving food parcels.
Programmes that utilized cash transfers had more favorable economic outcomes overall.

Abstract

What is the best way for public works programmes to remunerate participants so that they can achieve improved socio-economic status? Drawing on evidence from a study conducted by the HSRC on the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) Phase 2 (2009 -2014) in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), this policy brief considers the appropriateness and outcomes of the programme's wage transfer mechanisms - namely, 'wages' in cash or as in-kind payments in the form of food parcels - by contrasting their socio-economic outcomes across programme beneficiaries.

Read Full Paperexternally

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper