• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Beneficiaries’ perspectives in research on cash transfer and social protection programmes

Beneficiaries’ perspectives in research on cash transfer and social protection programmes

Helpdesk Report
  • Freida M'Cormack
July 2011

Question

What research, academic, NGO or government, has included the perspectives of beneficiaries of cash transfer or social protection programmes in developing countries and what results have emerged and how robust has been this participatory qualitative evidence? Are there any lessons learnt from the approaches taken to such participatory research?

Summary

The extent to which beneficiaries are included in cash transfer/social protection programmes, and the success and nature of this inclusion depends on a variety of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the programme’s inception and implementation; the ethos of the organisation(s) involved; and the nature of the programme itself. Researchers recognise that beneficiaries have in-depth knowledge and understanding that they lack, and that their participation can increase buy-in and applicability and facilitate the overall process. However, the research also shows that in some cases, participation must be carefully managed, particularly in heterogeneous or divided communities.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID Growth Team

Related Content

Social protection
Topic Guide
2019
Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
Cash-Based Initiatives for Refugees in Jordan: Annotated Bibliography
Helpdesk Report
2019
Assistive technologies in developing countries
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023