IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/hdnspu/191207.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cash or In-Kind Transfers : Do Outcomes Vary According to Transfer Modality?

Author

Listed:
  • World Bank

Abstract

Cash transfers in general appear to be more effective than in-kind transfers or vouchers at improving a range of outcomes, including decreasing monetary poverty, improving health and nutrition, and increasing food security, across diverse country contexts, program objectives, and design features. However, identifying a superior modality is challenging due to the heterogeneity in context, program design, and objectives of the studies reviewed, despite evidence generally favoring the effectiveness of cash transfers and acknowledging the enhanced effectiveness of a combination of modalities, referred to as cash plus, in specific cases.

Suggested Citation

  • World Bank, 2024. "Cash or In-Kind Transfers : Do Outcomes Vary According to Transfer Modality?," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 191207, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:hdnspu:191207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099061324164589834/pdf/P176585165b94509e194f51bf12e52f9dbb.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Schwab, 2020. "In the Form of Bread? A Randomized Comparison of Cash and Food Transfers in Yemen," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 91-113, January.
    2. Jesse M. Cunha, 2014. "Testing Paternalism: Cash versus In-Kind Transfers," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 195-230, April.
    3. Benjamin Schwab, 2019. "Comparing the Productive Effects of Cash and Food Transfers in a Crisis Setting: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Yemen," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(S1), pages 29-54, December.
    4. Craig McIntosh & Andrew Zeitlin, 2021. "Cash versus Kind: Benchmarking a Child Nutrition Program against Unconditional Cash Transfers in Rwanda," Papers 2106.00213, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Koppenberg, Maximilian & Mishra, Ashok K. & Hirsch, Stefan, 2023. "Food Aid and Violent Conflict: A Review of Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 16574, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. World Bank Group, 2016. "Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts," World Bank Publications - Reports 24699, The World Bank Group.
    3. Upton, Joanna B., 2014. "Resolving the Puzzle of the Conditional Superiority of In-kind versus Cash Food Assistance: Evidence from Niger," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 172942, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Gentilini,Ugo, 2016. "The revival of the"cash versus food"debate : new evidence for an old quandary ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7584, The World Bank.
    5. Tagliati, Federico, 2022. "Welfare effects of an in-kind transfer program: Evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Upton Joanna, 2018. "Working Paper 304 - The Use of Cash Versus Food Transfers in Eastern Niger," Working Paper Series 2430, African Development Bank.
    7. Jeong,Dahyeon & Trako,Iva, 2022. "Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Settings : A Review of Evidence and Knowledge Gaps," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10026, The World Bank.
    8. Koppenberg, Maximilian & Mishra, Ashok K. & Hirsch, Stefan, 2023. "Food aid and violent conflict: A review and Empiricist’s companion," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    9. Alderman, Harold, 2014. "Can transfer programs be made more nutrition sensitive?:," IFPRI discussion papers 1342, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Gentilini, Ugo, 2014. "Our daily bread : what is the evidence on comparing cash versus food transfers?," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 89502, The World Bank.
    11. Vaidya, Shalvaree, 2021. "The impact of premium subsidies on health plan choices in Switzerland: Who responds to the incentives set by in-kind as opposed to cash transfers?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(6), pages 675-684.
    12. Shapiro, Jeremy, 2019. "The impact of recipient choice on aid effectiveness," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-149.
    13. Lara Cockx & Nathalie Francken, 2016. "Evolution and impact of EU aid for food and nutrition security: a review," Working Papers of LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance 572519, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
    14. Christian P R Schmid & Nicolas Schreiner & Alois Stutzer, 2022. "Transfer Payment Systems and Financial Distress: Insights from Health Insurance Premium Subsidies," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(5), pages 1829-1858.
    15. Bruno Palialol & Paula Pereda, 2019. "In-kind transfers in Brazil: household consumption and welfare effects," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_26, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    16. Aaberge, Rolf & Eika, Lasse & Langørgen, Audun & Mogstad, Magne, 2019. "Local governments, in-kind transfers, and economic inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Gilligan, Daniel & Hidrobo, Melissa & Hoddinott, John & Roy, Shalini & Schwab, Benjamin, 2014. "Much ado about modalities: Multicountry experiments on the effects of cash and food transfers on consumption patterns," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 171159, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Claire MacPherson & Olivier Sterck, 2019. "Humanitarian vs. Development Aid for Refugees: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," CSAE Working Paper Series 2019-15, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    19. Teresa Molina Millan & Karen Macours, 2017. "Attrition in randomized control trials: Using tracking information to correct bias," NOVAFRICA Working Paper Series wp1702, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics, NOVAFRICA.
    20. Martin Ravallion, 2021. "On the Gains from Tradeable Benefits-in-Kind," Working Papers gueconwpa~21-21-13, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wbk:hdnspu:191207. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Aaron F Buchsbaum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wrldbus.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.