What can be learned from DFID-supported social protection and social transfer programmes? This review of 24 programmes in 16 countries across Africa, Asia and Europe finds that outcomes and impacts vary greatly relative to the unique conditions applied in specific contexts. A set of generalised findings can be identified, but these are not prescriptive policy options, and should be examined further in specific contexts. The effectiveness of social transfers is largely dependent on their level and regularity.
Social transfers provide direct, regular, and predictable assistance in cash or kind to poor individuals or households, with the aim of reducing deficits in consumption and, in some cases, strengthening their productive capacity. Most social transfer interventions supported by DFID – unconditional cash, food or asset transfers, public works, school feeding schemes, agricultural inputs packages – contribute to realising the objective of enhanced household food security in the short term, and to reductions in the severity of poverty, though not necessarily to sustainable poverty reduction. There is however an encouraging trend towards ‘needs-driven’ (rather than ‘resource-driven’) schemes.
In terms of the amounts transferred, it is important to take account of household need rather than size, and to make regular adjustments in line with price changes.
- Social transfers can enhance the health and education status of programme beneficiaries directly – by linking the delivery of transfers to services; indirectly – via beneficiaries use of transfer income; and incrementally – by delivering complementary interventions to the same individuals who receive social transfers.
- DFID’s most effective means of influencing government and donor approaches to social protection is its ability to facilitate policymakers’ access to the evidence base. This relies on the creation of influential partnerships with high-level actors.
- Social transfer schemes have a tendency to monitor process indicators (inputs and activities) rather than impact indicators (outputs and attributable changes in beneficiary wellbeing). Little impact was found – positive, neutral or negative – on economic growth.
- The various targeting methods used all showed mixed results.
The review highlights that what has worked well in one context may work very differently under a different set of conditions in another context. Governments and donors need to identify innovative complementary interventions to social transfers and build on positively evaluated experiences such as BRAC’s Asset Transfer Programme to the ‘ultrapoor’ in Bangladesh. Further:
- Targeting must be carefully implemented and monitored, but the principle of ‘acceptable error’ needs to be considered, particularly when building political support.
- Decisions to apply conditionality must be based on careful context assessment.
- The quality of the services accessed through social transfers can be improved through initiatives that link social transfers to public services. Social transfer schemes that promote education and health should intervene not only on the demand side (by providing incentives or reducing costs), but also on the supply side, to maximise improvements in service uptake and outcomes.
- Pilot projects are indispensable as a means of learning about design and delivery, but they are not informative when used primarily as an advocacy tool.
- Assessment of long-term impact is crucial. Resources are needed to support evaluation methodologies that can attribute costs and impacts to specific social transfer programmes, and can quantify positive and negative impacts on primary and secondary beneficiaries.
