• 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»Social transfer evaluation syntheses

Social transfer evaluation syntheses

Helpdesk Report
  • Evie Browne
January 2014

Question

Please could you provide the following information on meta-evaluations and evaluation syntheses relating to social transfer programmes (i.e. transfers of cash, vouchers, and other assets), completed in the past five years: 1. Title of study (authors, date etc); 2. Web link for where the study can be found; 3. Brief information on each study.

Summary

This paper includes cash transfers, cash-for-work, asset transfers and pensions. It excludes all other types of social protection, such as microfinance, food-for-work, school feeding, vouchers, and insurance. It lists meta-analyses, systematic reviews, syntheses and meta-evaluations, and excludes single programme evaluations. This report does not include primary research papers. All included reports draw on the programme evaluation literature, rather than policy or overview literature. The report errs on the side of inclusivity, and includes literature which have some relevant components from the list above, even if they also have other components.

There are two main sections to the report:

  • Cash transfers (CTs): Much of the social protection literature looks at CTs, either exclusively or as part of a package. This review found no meta-reviews which only evaluated Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs), except a review of pensions. There is minimal literature on pensions.
  • Impact analysis: This section includes the papers which looked at social transfers more broadly, and which were focused on drawing out evidence of impacts. They include some papers on CTs, but the focus of the papers is on examining development outcomes rather than describing particular projects.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID Evaluation Department

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 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