IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v134y2024i664p3360-3389..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cash Versus Kind: Benchmarking a Child Nutrition Program Against Unconditional Cash Transfers in Rwanda

Author

Listed:
  • Craig McIntosh
  • Andrew Zeitlin

Abstract

We develop a methodology to benchmark in-kind programs against cost-equivalent cash transfers. Our application compares a multi-dimensional child nutrition intervention to unconditional cash transfers, using randomised variation in transfer amounts and regression adjustment of expenditures to estimate impacts of cash transfers at identical cost as well as to estimate the return to increasing cash transfer amounts. While neither the in-kind program nor a cost-equivalent transfer costing $124 per household moves core child outcomes within a year, cash transfers create significantly greater consumption and asset accumulation. A larger cash transfer costing $517 substantially improves consumption and investment outcomes and drives modest improvements in dietary diversity and child growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig McIntosh & Andrew Zeitlin, 2024. "Cash Versus Kind: Benchmarking a Child Nutrition Program Against Unconditional Cash Transfers in Rwanda," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(664), pages 3360-3389.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:134:y:2024:i:664:p:3360-3389.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueae050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:134:y:2024:i:664:p:3360-3389.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.