Conditional cash transfers - a way out?

Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) have been promoted as innovative poverty reduction programmes because they combine income support to poor families with investments in human capital. But have they delivered on these promises? Comparative research across four countries in Latin America suggests that they have.

More than a dozen countries in Latin America have introduced CCT programmes since the mid-1990s. A new book from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) reviews the impacts of four of the best-known CCTs: Bolsa Alimentação in Brazil, the Programa de Asignación Familiar – Fase II (PRAF-II) in Honduras, PROGRESA in Mexico and Red de Protección Social (RPS) in Nicaragua. IFPRI examines the political and economic aspects of implementing these programmes, and assesses how they influence – and are influenced by – gender, other social relations and community dynamics.

Drawing on a range of methodologies, from randomised longitudinal surveys to qualitative techniques at community, household and individual levels, the research finds significant positive impacts in education, health, nutrition, food security and gender relations.

• Schooling indicators such as enrolment, attendance and grades completed all improved significantly: estimates for PROGRESA showed a 9 to 12 percent increase in enrolment and an additional grade of completed schooling. RPS showed a 13 percent increase in enrolments and a 20 percent increase in attendance.
• Health services were used more for young children in Honduras and Brazil, though not in Mexico. • PROGRESA and RPS had a significant effect on children’s nutritional levels, as reflected in their height measurements.
• In three countries, CCTs helped to raise the caloric intake of the poorest third of households: by 5.6 percent in Mexico, 6.9 percent in Honduras and 12.7 percent in Nicaragua.
• CCTs had positive impacts on gender relations: although women still had to get their husbands to agree before making certain purchases, the programme provided them with money they could spend independently and household tensions over resources reportedly reduced.
• Families and communities were more aware and acknowledging of women’s equality, the importance of women’s roles and the value of girls’ education. Despite these achievements, improvements can be made to CCT programmes.
• Age groups which most require better nutrition, health and education need to be carefully considered when conditions are set; this will allow for more effective use of resources.
• The quality of schools and health care facilities need to improve greatly, to maximise the impacts of the conditionalities.
• Programmes need to improve their communications and mechanisms to allow feedback from communities, particularly on controversial issues such as conditionalities and targeting.
• Approaches to service delivery, opportunities for community participation and efforts to strengthen women’s empowerment could move beyond health and education objectives.

Finally, a better understanding is needed of the pathways through which CCT programmes achieve certain impacts in each country, as well as the socio-cultural and economic reasons why people do not always respond as predicted.

John Hoddinott
International Food Policy Research Institute
2033 K St, NW
Washington DC 20006-1002
USA
T +1 202 8625600
J.Hoddinott@cgiar.org