[2] Cash transfers constitute a critical element in the realm of global social policy, addressing needs ranging from poverty alleviation to crisis response.
These transfers target various demographic groups, including the unemployed, single parents, and individuals facing disabilities or old age challenges.
[7] Likewise, Joel Ruiz Butuyan also questioned the effects of increasing cash transfer budgets on the annual national debt.
[3] Cash transfer programmes in developing countries are constrained by financial resources, institutional capacity and political ideology.
[4] Governments in poorer countries tend to have restricted financial resources, and are therefore limited in the amount they can invest both directly in cash transfers and in measures to ensure that such programmes are effective.
[4] The amount invested is influenced by ‘value for money’ considerations, as well as by political and ideological concerns regarding ‘free handouts’ and ‘creating dependency’.
If introduced, these schemes are often directed at the non-working poor (although the DfID backed Hunger Safety Nets Programme is a notable exception).
‘Participatory monitoring and evaluation’ (PM&E) techniques and mechanisms are particularly effective at giving a voice to the people who receive the money, and, when they work well, they serve increase the accountability of governments, local officials and programme implementers.
Qualitative and participatory research carried out by the Overseas Development Institute (in Kenya, Mozambique, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Uganda and Yemen) investigating individual and community perceptions of cash transfer programmes[11] reveals that the money has a number of positive, and potentially transformative, effects on the lives of the individuals and families that receive them, including: • People prefer to receive cash than other forms of assistance (food aid, public works, etc.)
• People experience an increase in their quality of life e.g. they are able to construct permanent shelters, have three meals a day and pay health-related costs.
• Particularly vulnerable or excluded beneficiaries felt that they were now able to meet the basic needs of their families, giving them greater economic freedom, security and enhanced psychological well-being.
Cash transfer programs have been criticized for enabling political patronage between legislators and voters and serving as a conduit for legalised vote buying.
The payment process in this case meant bringing the SIM card to a recognized economic center in a community that was nearest to the individual who did not have a mobile phone.
Members currently include local and international non-governmental organisations, United Nations agencies, the Red Cross/Crescent Movement, donors, specialist social innovation, technology and financial services companies, researchers and academics, and individual practitioners.
[34] An update of this landmark review from 2022 confirmed these findings, plus concluded that there is now sufficient evidence that such cash transfers also reduce the likelihood of recipients living in extreme poverty.
[36] In 2022, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 45 studies examined the impact of cash transfers on self-reported subjective wellbeing and mental health outcomes, covering a sample of 116,999 individuals.
[37] After an average follow-up time of two years, the study found that cash transfers have a small but statistically significant positive effect on both subjective wellbeing and mental health among recipients.