• 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»Impact of cash and asset transfers on child and forced marriage

Impact of cash and asset transfers on child and forced marriage

Helpdesk Report
  • Róisín Hinds
January 2015

Question

What are the impacts of cash and asset transfers on child and forced marriage? If possible, identify key actors working in this area, lessons from interventions, and any guidance on scale

Summary

There are very few programmes that have directly tried to tackle forced and early marriage through cash or asset transfers. Of the programmes that have, many are fairly recent or are small-scale, making it difficult to assess long term impacts or draw lessons (Sinha and Young 2009). Some cash and asset transfer programmes have indirectly impacted on child and forced marriage through, for example, increasing girls’ participation in schooling.

Of the evidence that is available, some of the programmes identified include: the Zomba cash transfer programme, Malawi; female secondary school stipend, Bangladesh; the Punjabi Female School Stipend Programme (FSSP), Pakistan; Berhance Hewan asset transfers, Ethiopia; and Apni Beti Apna Dhan conditional cash transfers, India.

Some of the lessons emerging from existing initiatives include:

  • There is more evidence on the impact of conditional cash transfers, with a number of studies demonstrating the positive impact they have had in delaying marriage (Nanda et al. 2014; Alam, Baez and Del Carpio 2011). There is less robust evidence on the impact of non-conditional transfers. Further research is needed to determine whether conditional or non-conditional transfers have more positive effects.
  • Better targeting is needed to reach the poorest families (Raynor and Wesson 2006);
  • There is very little mention of scale or cost-effectiveness in programme evaluations. There is a need to do further research in this area (Fraser 2011).
  • Some programmes use a combination of approaches to address the different factors that contribute to child marriage. For instance, the use of cash transfers to address economic factors, combined with awareness raising to address social factors (Population Council 2014; Muthengi and Erulkar 2011).

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 582 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Hinds, R. (2015). Impact of cash transfers on child and forced marriage (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1172). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Workplace-based Learning and Youth Employment in Africa
Literature Review
2020
Social protection
Topic Guide
2019
Linking Social Protection and Humanitarian Response – Best Practice
Helpdesk Report
2019
Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022