Cash Transfers: A Better Investment For The Future

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs are an increasingly popular anti-poverty strategy, with over 60 such programs now in operation worldwide. CCTs provide monetary transfers to poor families on the condition that they invest in the education and health of their children. For example, families may be required to enrol their children in public schools, attend regular health check-ups, or receive vaccinations.

CCTs have been shown to be effective in reducing poverty and increasing consumption in the short term. They have also been successful in increasing school enrolment and attendance, particularly at the middle school level, and in improving the health and nutrition of children.

However, there is some criticism of CCTs. Some argue that unconditional transfers would be more effective, as they would allow families to decide for themselves how best to use the cash. Others claim that CCTs are unsustainable and do not have a significant impact on poverty alleviation. There is also evidence that CCTs do not always improve the quality of education or increase salaries once recipients enter the workforce.

Despite these concerns, CCTs remain a valuable tool for poverty reduction and can be combined with other policies to maximise their effectiveness.

Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) incentivise parents to invest in their children's health and education

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs have been implemented in many countries, including the US, Mexico, Brazil, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Argentina, Indonesia, Jamaica, and more. These programs aim to incentivise parents to invest in their children's health and education by providing monetary transfers to poor families on the condition that they make investments in their children's education and health.

The conditions of CCT programs usually include education provisions that require school enrolment and attendance for at least 80% of school days. Some programs also include nutrition conditions that require health check-ups and vaccinations for children.

CCT programs have been shown to be effective in achieving their dual goals of alleviating poverty and helping individuals from poor households improve their chances of getting out of poverty. They increase the ability of parents to provide for their families and improve their children's educational attainment.

For example, in a study on a program from Mexico, it was found that 17 years after participation in the program, beneficiaries were 36.6% more likely to be employed than similar people who did not participate in the program. Additionally, the quality of employment improved, with beneficiaries being more likely to be employed in the formal sector, receive non-wage benefits, and earn higher wages.

CCT programs have also been shown to increase school enrolment and attendance, especially in middle school. They have also had a substantial impact on the health and nutrition of children, with improvements in visits to health providers and reduced stunting.

However, there is limited evidence that CCT programs improve the quality of learning for those receiving transfers. Additionally, some critics argue that the effects of CCT programs are short-term and do not address the root causes of poverty.

CCTs are more effective than unconditional transfers at improving schooling outcomes

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs are more effective than unconditional transfers at improving schooling outcomes. CCTs have a larger effect on enrolment if there are conditions that are strictly monitored and enforced. Programs that are explicitly conditional, monitor compliance and penalise non-compliance have larger effects, increasing the odds of enrolment by 60% compared to less than 20% for programs with no conditions.

A study in Malawi found that CCTs had significantly higher impacts on school enrolment, dropout, and test scores than UCTs. Improvements in attendance were observed, as the overall attendance rate was 8% higher in the CCT group than the control group. While school dropout rates declined in both the UCT and CCT groups, the effect in the UCT was only 43% as large as in the CCT arm.

In addition, test scores on reading comprehension, mathematics, and cognitive ability improved in the CCT group but not the UCT group. There were no statistically significant differences observed in the UCT group when compared to the control group.

CCTs have been shown to increase years of schooling and graduation rates

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs have been shown to increase years of schooling and graduation rates. CCTs provide monetary transfers to poor families on the condition that they invest in the education and health of their children. These programs usually include provisions that require school enrolment and a minimum attendance rate of at least 80% of school days.

CCTs have been proven to increase years of schooling. In Indonesia, the PKH cash transfer program halved the share of children between the ages of 7 and 15 who were not enrolled in school. Years of schooling and graduation from high school increased for children who received conditional cash transfers in Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Indonesia, even between 6 and 17 years after receiving the cash transfers. In Malawi, girls in the treatment group were more likely to return to or stay in school, with 61% in school in the treatment group and only 17% in the control group.

However, there is less evidence that CCTs improve the quality of learning. There is no evidence that the programs improve the quality of learning for those receiving transfers. Evidence from Cambodia, Colombia, and Mexico shows that student performance in standardised tests was no better for program beneficiaries than for those who did not benefit from CCT programs.

CCTs can improve access to jobs and better-quality jobs

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs have been shown to improve access to jobs and better-quality jobs. In a study on Mexico's CCT program, it was found that 17 years after participation, beneficiaries were 36.6% more likely to be employed than similar people who did not participate in the program. The quality of employment also improved, with beneficiaries being more likely to be employed in the formal sector, receive non-wage benefits, and earn higher wages.

CCTs can also lead to better job opportunities for beneficiaries due to their effect on increased educational attainment. For example, in Ecuador, children who were eligible for the Bono de Desarrollo Humano (BDH) conditional cash transfer program had a higher participation in formal labor markets after they turned 21 than non-beneficiaries. The program was conditional on school attendance and health check-ups, and the authors suggest that the positive impact on employment may be due to reduced school dropout rates.

In addition to improving access to jobs, CCTs can also help beneficiaries obtain better-quality jobs. For instance, in Norway, tightening enforcement of conditions and increasing benefits led to higher earnings for beneficiaries. This suggests that a moderate level of enforcement can improve employment outcomes.

Overall, CCTs have been shown to be effective in improving access to jobs and better-quality jobs for beneficiaries, which can help them break the cycle of poverty and improve their long-term economic prospects.

CCTs can reduce poverty and increase consumption in the short term

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs have been shown to reduce poverty and increase consumption in the short term. Evidence from Nicaragua, Colombia and Mexico shows that the share of households living below the poverty line fell by 5, 3 and 1 percentage points, respectively. Evidence from Latin America also suggests that poverty rates would be 13% higher in the absence of CCTs. Consumption also increases in Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua in households receiving CCTs.

CCTs provide monetary transfers to poor families on the condition that they invest in the education and health of their children. These conditions include enrolling children in public schools, getting regular check-ups at the doctor's office, and receiving vaccinations. CCTs have been shown to increase school enrollment and attendance, especially in middle school. They have also been shown to improve health and nutrition for children.

CCTs have been credited with reducing conflict in the Philippines. A study by Crost, Felter and Johnston found that there was a sharper decrease in the number of reported conflicts in villages where the 4Ps program was introduced in 2009 than in those where the program was delayed until 2010. Cash transfers encourage the public to trust the government and provide them with valuable information regarding insurgents. They also increase the opportunity cost of joining an insurgency, as it becomes difficult to receive payments once someone becomes an active insurgent.

CCTs have been criticised for not being a long-term solution to poverty. Critics argue that the billions invested in CCT programs could have been better spent on job creation, and that the programs have missed many poor families. There is also evidence that CCTs do not always improve the quality of education and learning. Studies from Cambodia, Colombia and Mexico show that student performance in standardised tests was no better for program beneficiaries than for those who did not benefit from CCTs.

Frequently asked questions