• 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»Financing and Cost-effectiveness of Cash Transfer Schemes

Financing and Cost-effectiveness of Cash Transfer Schemes

Helpdesk Report
  • Brian Lucas
August 2010

Question

What does the evidence base on the costing, financing and cost effectiveness of cash transfer schemes tell us?

Summary

There is widespread agreement in the literature that cash transfers are effective in achieving a range of development objectives and that fears of creating dependency or enabling misuse of funds by recipients are groundless. While there are many impact evaluations of cash transfer programmes, there is very little hard data on cost-effectiveness, particularly compared with other types of interventions. There are wide variations in what costs are included in calculations, uncertainty in valuing benefits, and differences in programme objectives and methods, making like-for-like comparisons difficult. Key lessons emerging from the literature are:

  • Cost-effectiveness estimates suffer from insufficient data on costs as well as on values of direct and indirect benefits.
  • Evidence is inconclusive as to whether cash transfers are more or less cost-effective than other types of interventions, but they generally have lower administration/overhead costs.
  • Cash benefits are more flexible for recipients than other forms of aid such as food transfers.
  • Cash transfers produce a wider range of indirect benefits than other forms of aid.
  • Cash transfers depend on the existence of local markets that can meet the demands of cash recipients.
  • Conditionality affects outcomes, but monitoring compliance with the conditions increases costs considerably.
  • Strict targeting of transfers limits the total cost of a cash transfer programme but it greatly increases the administration cost component.

There is also widespread agreement that cash transfer programmes are no more expensive than other types of development interventions, but that in most low-income countries it is unlikely that large-scale programmes can be funded purely from domestic resources.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID Poverty Response 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 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 DFID are © DFID 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