• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • 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
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Evidence on the comparative cost efficiency and effectiveness of varying social assistance modalities

Evidence on the comparative cost efficiency and effectiveness of varying social assistance modalities

Helpdesk Report
  • Pamela Pozarny
January 2016

Question

What is the evidence on the comparative cost efficiency and effectiveness of different social assistance modalities (particularly cash transfers, food vouchers and food distribution), taking into consideration the range of associated costs and benefits, with emphasis on conflict affected and protracted crisis settings, particularly in the MENA region.

Summary

There is limited literature that rigorously measures cost efficiency of programme modalities, or that compares modalities. The key points raised in the literature include the following:

  • Transfer appropriateness is context-specific and determined by multiple factors including programme objectives
  • Cash transfers are generally found to be the least-cost modality – which suggests opportunities to expand coverage or build complementarities
  • The provision of cash requires well-functioning local food markets – questions of access to markets, increase in supplies to local markets, potential price fluctuations and competitiveness should be assessed
  • Consideration should be given to transfer value and price fluctuations, particularly for cash and vouchers, as they are rarely index-linked and risk potential value loss when food prices rise – from this perspective, in-kind food transfers shield beneficiaries from inflation while cash transfers risk erosion
  • Different priorities may compete, such as timeliness, cost-effectiveness, local market effects, recipient satisfaction, food quality, impact on smallholder suppliers, and livelihoods
  • A single modality may not be always preferable
  • Intra-household preferences and intended beneficiary choices on type of modality should be assessed.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 594 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Pozarny, P. (2016). Evidence on the comparative cost efficiency and effectiveness of various social assistance modalities (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1323). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

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 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by FCDO are © FCDO Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more