Conditional cash transfer

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs aim to reduce poverty by making welfare programs conditional upon the receivers' actions. The government (or a charity) only transfers the money to persons who meet certain criteria. These criteria may include enrolling children into public schools, getting regular check-ups at the doctor's office, receiving vaccinations, or the like. CCTs seek to help the current generation in poverty, as well as breaking the cycle of poverty for the next through the development of human capital.


Conditional cash transfers have been used in many countries:


Few development initiatives have been evaluated as rigorously as CCT programs.[24] The implementation of conditional cash transfer programs has been accompanied by systematic efforts to measure their effectiveness and understand their broader impact on household behavior,[25] a marked departure from the limited attention that was paid to rigorous impact evaluations in the past. Evaluation results are available for PROGRESA in Mexico,[26] PETI in Brazil and the Atencion a Crisis in Nicaragua.[27] These evaluations reveal that conditional cash transfers can provide effective incentives for investing in the poor’s human capital.

CCTs have affected not only the overall level of consumption, but also the composition of consumption. There is a good deal of evidence that households that receive CCTs spend more on food and, in the food basket, on higher-quality sources of nutrients than do households that do not receive the transfer but have comparable overall income or consumption levels.[28]

In Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey, where school enrollment rates among girls were lower than among boys, CCTs have helped reduce this gender gap.[29]

CCTs have resulted in sizeable reductions in poverty among recipients—especially when the transfer has been sufficient, well targeted, and structured in a way that does not discourage recipients from taking other actions to escape poverty. Because CCTs provide a steady income, they have helped protect poor households from the worst effects of unemployment, catastrophic illness, and other sudden income shocks. And making cash transfers to women, as virtually all CCTs do, may have increased their bargaining power.[29]

In the US, a paper by the Institute for Research on Poverty concluded in 2011:

"Over time, we find that expenditures have shifted toward the disabled and the elderly, and away from those with the lowest incomes and toward those with higher incomes, with the consequence that post-transfer rates of deep poverty for some groups have increased. We conclude that the U.S. benefit system is paternalistic and tilted toward the support of the employed and toward groups with special needs and perceived deservingness."[30]

Latin America

Many countries in Latin America are now using CCT programs as a major tool of their social policy since they have been proven to be very effective in helping poor families. By 2011 CCTs had spread to 18 countries in the region and covered as many as 129 million beneficiaries.[31] Although the conditions and amounts of money may vary from country to country, ranging from $5 to $33 per child,[32] in general these programs provide money to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their children’s human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care. The purpose of these programs is to address the inter-generational transmission of poverty and to foster social inclusion by targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering transfers to women, and changing social accountability relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and governments.[33] Most of these transfer schemes are now benefiting around 110 million people in the region, and are considered relatively cheap, costing around 0.5% of their GDP.[34]

Conditional cash transfer programs can be very effective in reducing poverty in the short term since they have helped to increase household income and consumption in poor families.They have also worked effectively in increasing school enrollment and attendance, especially in middle school. A substantial improvement in health and nutrition of the children that benefit from these programs has been acknowledged.[35] However, studies by the UNDP have shown that conditional cash transfers neither represented a significant increase in the quality of education and in learning nor significant increased salaries, once the recipients entered the labor force.

Most CCT programs are very well-targeted and effective in reaching the poor and the excluded groups, notably the extreme poor living outside the reach of social protection programs tied with formal sector employment. On average, 80% of the benefits go to the 40% poorest families.[33] The programs have also promoted equality of gender since they provide larger funds to girls since they often drop out earlier, so it has increased their enrollment and attendance to secondary levels of education. In the long run, these investments may also yield to significant changes in women's empowerment and insertion in economic networks.[33]


While most conditional cash transfer programs are in Latin America, a significant amount of research has been conducted regarding the implementation of these programs in Africa. In addition, programs are looking to the Latin America for examples on how to implement these programs. While there are a few unconditional cash transfer programs in Africa being tested, two conditional cash transfer programs in Africa are currently being implemented. For CCTs to be successful, they require sufficient infrastructure. Poor education and health systems limit the benefits of CCT programs. Impacts should be seen in regard to the effectiveness of health and education institutions of the country.


Since 2007 a pilot conditional cash transfer program has been researching its effectiveness in Morocco, organized by the World Bank. The program targets poor regions of Morocco with high dropout rates and should cover 160,000 households by 2010.[36] The pilot program is a comparative test that has four treatment groups. One group is receiving unconditional cash transfers, regardless of child school attendance. The next three are given conditional cash transfers to families of children grades 3-6 based on the child's attendance at school.

The three treatment groups vary in how attendance is monitored, ranging from monitoring attendance based on teacher’s report, all the way to a sophisticated system involving monitoring through biometric fingerprint machines.[36]

In addition, within each classroom, which parent (the mother or father) is randomized to see if the family benefits more from having the money targeted to one or the other. This study will bring research that assesses the importance of conditionality, monitoring, and targeting within a conditional cash transfer program.[36]


Conditional cash transfer programs are not used widely in Europe. In the UK, in 2011 CentreForum proposed an additional child benefit dependent on parenting activities.[37]


In Turkey, CCT program has still been implemented by GDSA since 2003 with education and health components in which almost 6 billion Turkish Liras (app. 2 billion Euros) have been spent to about 3.5 million beneficiary households. In order to be paid regularly in CCT programm, students (ages 5–20) have to attend to their school regularly and children (ages 0–6) have to be taken to health centres regularly. All the conditions are being monitored by GDSA from the databases of Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education by the means of an interactive web-based MIS.

The conditional education grants are provided to children of the target group on school enrollment condition, from the first grade through the end of the twelfth grade. Once qualified as beneficiaries, children should maintain at least 80 per cent attendance rate to continue to receive the grant.

Individual payment amounts differ according to components. Girls are paid higher amounts than boys in education component to encourage poor families to send their daughters to school. Besides, due to increasing drop-out rates in higher grades, secondary school (9th-12th grades) students are paid higher amounts than primary school ones in order to ensure the effect of the program on decreasing the drop-out rates.

The project named "Strengthening the Impact of the Conditional Cash Transfer Programme in Turkey for Increasing High School Attendance" (Liseye Devam Senden, Destek Bizden) has been started up in December 2014 by GDSA through EU co-finance. The project has been integrated to Turkey's CCT implementation and designed for high school CCT beneficiaries in order to ensure them to get a degree and decrease early school leaving rates which also is one of the most important topics for 2020 European Union targets for a sustainable growth.[38]

In the scope of the project, extra incentives were added into CCT education programme aiming to support high school education attendance which would provide stronger reinforcement for the CCT families. Grants (€60 in 2014 and €70 in 2015 for each eligible student) is provided for parents (preferably mothers) of high school (9th, 10th and 11th grades and 12th for 2015) CCT beneficiaries suffering from lack of financial resources to cover educational expenditures especially in the beginning of each year.[39]

Medical applications

Modest financial incentives delivered in routine clinical practice have been found to significantly improve adherence to, and completion of, vaccination programmes.[40][41]

Obstacles and failed programs

Although the benefits of conditional cash transfer programs across the world have been widely noted, there remains a series of obstacles to their success that have caused some programs to be stunted or terminated completely.[42]

External factors

According to a comprehensive study done by senior research analysts Laura Rawlings and Gloria Rubio of the World Bank, the beginning stages of program implementation present the challenge of creating a reliable implementation schedule.[43] On many occasions, changes in political leadership, natural disasters, or changes in program administration have delayed the implementation schedule and lead to decreased efficiency or program termination.[43]

An example of the negative outcomes of one such delay is provided by the UN Development Programme's in-depth study of the short-lived Nicaragua's Social Protection Network. According to the study, the movement of the program administration to the country's Ministry of the Family caused a delay in efficiency and resources that, among other factors, led to the program's termination.[44] Delays can also be caused by difficulties in developing the program management information system (MIS).[45]

One such delay in Mexico's Oportunidades program caused 27% of its targeted population not to receive any transfers after two years of implementation.[45]

In addition to unscheduled delays, other external factors that can hinder a CCT's success pertain to unexpected financial crisis.[46] According to a comprehensive assessment provided by the World Bank, the structure of conditional cash transfer programs has not yet been adjusted to retain success in the event of a large financial crisis.[46]

Primarily, conditional cash transfer programs are not flexible enough to extend benefits to households that fall into the program's targeted population only during economic downturns. Thus, those not normally covered by the program's benefits may be harder hit than those who are but will not be able to be assisted.[46]


Another common obstacle to success in most CCTs is exclusion of needy homes in the targeting process. In an assessment by the World Bank, much exclusion was due to remote communities' inability to access schools or clinics. Many such communities fall into developing countries' most poverty-stricken populations but cannot follow through with conditionalities since the transportation costs to attend schools or hospital visits outweigh the benefits.[47] Furthermore, an evaluation of Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades program addresses the issue that those in poverty with debilitating illnesses can be excluded from CCTs due to their physical inability to accomplish the conditionalities.[48]

Exclusion has been noted by both the World Bank study and the Progresa-Oportunidades evaluation evident in community-based targeting and self-targeting approaches. In the case of self-targeting, used by Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades, working women may be excluded from the program because they are unable to miss work to register or accomplish all conditions.[49] In the case of community-based targeting, the World Bank study notes that the extremely poor who may live in generally middle-class communities will be excluded.[50]


Targeted populations' distrust of the program due to lack of adequate information has been noted by at least three case studies to be a leading factor in the CCT programs’ downfalls. The extensive study by the UN Development Programme on Nicaragua's Social Protection Network (RPS) reveals that the level of distrust of the program was so high that a domestic publicity campaign could have possibly saved the RPS from extinction.[51] This high level of domestic distrust was due, in part, to efforts to politicize the program.[52]

One report addressed in the UN Development Programme's study stated that RPS employees were approached by members of the government, who demanded that half their salaries be donated to the party in power. Although the RPS was successful in avoiding the threats, it was later revealed that the RPS was the only Nicaraguan institution of its kind not making government contributions.[52]

This same level of distrust is reflected in a study on the feasibility of a Haitian CCT made by the International Food Policy Research Institute. In the focus group they interviewed, almost all subjects expressed a "profound lack of faith" in the Haitian government. Instead, they preferred that the conditional cash transfer programs be implemented by community committees or NGOs.[53]

However, this distrust in governments' ability to fairly implement CCTs fairly is not strictly limited to developing countries. In an article in the New York Times addressing the termination of the pilot CCT, Opportunity NYC, the committee leader of one of its lending institutions stated that people were distrustful and confused by the program's intricacies. New York City's deputy mayor for health and human services added that many busy and stressed households were not being able to handle the many conditions they had to complete since they were not efficiently educated about the program.[54]

Unconditional versus conditional cash transfers

There is currently much discussion about whether conditionality, or conditions for the cash transfer, is necessary or important to a cash transfer program. Research, such as the pilot conditional cash transfer program in Indonesia called Generasi, examined the importance of conditionality.[55] One report looks at data from Mexico's Oportunidades/Progresa program, which looks at families who accidentally did not receive forms that monitor school attendance and therefore received unconditional cash transfers. It then compares them with those households that did receive the forms. It was shown that conditionality had the strongest impact on children's attendance to secondary school, as enrollment rates in secondary school were higher for those that received the forms.[56]

Another report on an experiment in Malawi is researching the importance of conditionality among families with school-age girls. The program was conducted, with data collected between October 2007 and June 2010.[57] It was found that the treatment arm providing conditional cash transfer programs had higher enrollment rates, as well as higher scores in independently administered tests of cognitive ability, mathematics and English reading comprehension. However, the UCT treatment arm had a much lower incidence of pregnancy and marriage among schoolage girls.

A strong argument against the conditionality of social cash transfers is proposed by proponents of a rights-based approach to development. From a human rights perspective, cash transfers are a means to ensure the human rights to social protection and an adequate standard of living for all members of society, including first and foremost the fundamental right to food. States have the duty to ensure those rights with a maximum of available resources. While reducing poverty in general, conditional cash transfers have shown to often exclude those who need it the most, violating the human rights principle of non-discrimination and equality.[58]

The following program in Malawi is an example of an unconditional cash transfer:

The Mchinji Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme is part of the larger Malawi Social Protection Policy and Framework, and began in April 2006. It is mainly financed by UNICEF and the National AIDS Commission.[59] The objectives of the scheme are to reduce poverty of people in the pilot area who are ultra poor and labor constrained, increase school enrolment and attendance, and to generate information regarding the feasibility of a cash transfer program as part of a Social Protection Programme for Malawi. The goal for this program is to reduce the ultra poverty rate from the 22% rate in 2007 to 10% by 2015.[59]

This program targets those households that are ultra poor (See poverty for definition) and those who are labor constrained, defined as either a household in which no able-bodied members 19-64 can work due to chronic sickness or disability or a household with one-able bodied member that has to care for more than three dependents. About 22% of Malawi as of 2007 was ultra-poor, living on less than 20 cents a day, and of that group 10% are labor constrained.[59]

The program would give anywhere from 600 kwacha ($4 US) monthly for a one-person household to 1800 kwacha ($13 US) monthly for a four or more person family. There is also an extra bonus of 200 kwacha for children enrolled in primary school and 400 kwacha for children enrolled in secondary school.[59] The location for the program is in the Mchinji District, the 14th poorest district out of 28 in Malawi.

It was chosen for its average poverty level of all the districts in Malawi and its proximity to the capital, Lilongwe.[59]

See also

Specific programs:


  1. "Safety Nets and Transfers: CCT Program Profile - Bangladesh." World Bank.,,contentMDK:22060179~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282761~isCURL:Y,00.html
  2. Glewwe, Paul; Kassouf, Ana Lucia. "The Impact of the Bolsa Escola/Familia Conditional Cash Transfer Program on Enrollment, Drop Out Rates and Grade Promotion in Brazil." August 2010
  3. "Can Conditional Cash Transfers Reduce Poverty and Crime? Evidence from Brazil".
  4. "Safety Nets and Transfers: CCT Program Profile - Cambodia." World Bank.,,contentMDK:22060636~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282761~isCURL:Y,00.html
  5. 1 2 3 4 Gustavo Nigenda, Maria Gonzalez-Robledo:Lessons offered by Latin America's cash transfer programs, Mexican Health Foundation, Centre for Social and Economic Analysis, 2005, accessed on March 22, 2009
  6. Palma, Julieta; Urzúa, Raúl. "Anti-poverty Policies and Citizenry: the Chile Solidario Experience." UNESCO Management of Social Transformations Policy Papers/12. Department of Public Policy. Institute of Public Affairs. University of Chile.
  7. "Evaluation of Familias en Acción." Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  8. "Mi familia Progresa."
  9. IFPRI: The cost of poverty alleviation transfer programs, accessed on April 8, 2010
  10. "PROGRAMA DE ASIGNACIÓN FAMILIAR (PRAF)." Gobierno de Unidad Nacional. Domingo, 4 de marzo de 2012
  11. Galiani, Sebastian, and Patrick J. McEwan. "The heterogeneous impact of conditional cash transfers." Working Paper, Washington University in St. Louis, November 2011.
  12. Damayanti, Arie (LPEM FEUI, Jakarta), Moeis, Jossy P. (LPEM FEUI, Jakarta), Sparrow, Robert (ISS, The Hague), Herawati, Yulia (World Bank Office, Jakarta). "Program Keluarga Harapan and PNPM-Generasi Baseline Survey – Preliminary Findings." World Bank. January 24, 2008
  13. Ayala, Francisco. "The Programme for Advancement through Health and Education (PATH), Jamaica Inter-Regional Inequality Facility Policy Briefs 4, February 2006." Overseas Development Institute.
  14. "Mexico’s Oportunidades Program." SHANGHAI POVERTY CONFERENCE: CASE STUDY SUMMARY. World Bank.
  15. Attanasio, Orazio P., Costas Meghir, and Ana Santiago. 2011. "Education Choices in Mexico: Using a Structural Model and a Randomized Experiment to Evaluate PROGRESA." Review of Economic Studies 79: 37-66.
  16. Angelucci, Manuela, Giacomo de Giorgi, Marcos A. Rangel, and Imran Rasul. 2010. "Family Networks and School Enrolment: Evidence from a Randomized Social Experiment." Journal of Public Health Economics 94:197-221.
  19. Moore, Charity. “Nicaragua’s Red de Proteccion Social: An Exemplary but Short-lived Conditional Cash Transfer Program.” International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, no.17, (2009): 1-42.
  20. "Opportunities Network: Impact on Child Labor." Republic of Panama. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. October 2007.
  21. "Juntos Program and Corda Technologies Improve the Lives of Peruvian Children and Their Families." Government of Peru Juntos Program.
  22. "Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program." Department of Social Welfare and Development.
  23. "Opportunity NYC: Family Rewards."
  24. Rawlings, Laura B.; Rubio, Gloria M. "Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Lessons from Latin America." World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3119, August 2003.
  26. Fernald, Lia C.H., Paul J. Gertler, and Lynnette M. Neufeld. 2008. "Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico’s Oportunidades." Lancet 327:828-37.
  27. Macours, Karen, Patrick Premand, and Reno Vakis. "Transfers, Diversification and Household Risk Strategies: Experimental Evidence with Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation." Working Paper, Paris School of Economics, November 2011.
  28. Rutter, Jill. “Making the case for rigorous, evidence-based policymaking” The Guardian. February 16, 2012.
  29. 1 2 Fiszbein, Ariel; Schady, Norbert; Ferreira, Francisco H.G.; Grosh, Margaret; Kelleher,Nial; Olinto, Pedro; Skoufias, Emmanuel. "CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS REDUCING PRESENT AND FUTURE POVERTY." World Bank.
  30. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States, Ben-Shalom, Moffitt, Scholz, Mai 2011
  31. Stampini, M. and L. Tornarolli. 2012. “The growth of conditional cash transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean: did they go too far?” IDB Policy Brief n. 185, and IZA policy paper n. 49.
  32. Societies on the Move (September 11, 2010). The Economist. 396(8699), pp. 11-15
  33. 1 2 3 De la Brière, Bénédicte and Rawlings, Laura B. (2006). Examining Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: A Role for Increased Social Inclusion? Social Safety Net Primer Papers. The World Bank
  34. Societies on the Move (2010, September 11). The Economist. 396(8699), pp. 11-15
  35. Actuar Sobre el Futuro: Romper la Transmisión Intergeneracional de la Igualdad (2010). Regional Human Development Report for Latin America and the Caribbean. UNDP
  36. 1 2 3 "Morocco: Conditional Cash Transfers and Education." Middle East and North Africa - Morocco: Conditional Cash Transfers and Education. World Bank, 2007. Web. .
  38. Retrieved 30 September 2015. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  39. Retrieved 30 September 2015. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  42. Rawlings, Laura and Gloria Rubio. Evaluating the Impact of CCT Programs: Lessons from Latin America. World Bank Working Paper Research Policy, no. 3119 (August 2003): 1-25.
  43. 1 2 Rawlings, Laura and Gloria Rubio. "Evaluating the Impact of CCT Programs: Lessons from Latin America." World Bank Working Paper Research Policy, no. 3119 (August 2003): 23
  44. Moore, Charity. "Nicaragua’s Red de Proteccion Social: An Exemplary but Short-lived Conditional Cash Transfer Program." International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, no.17, (2009): 1-42.
  45. 1 2 Rawlings, Laura and Gloria Rubio. "Evaluating the Impact of CCT Programs: Lessons from Latin America." World Bank Working Paper Research Policy, no. 3119 (August 2003): 20.
  46. 1 2 3 Fizbein, Ariel and Norbert Shaby. "Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty." The World Bank. (2009): 125.
  47. Fizbein, Ariel and Norbert Shaby. "Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty." The World Bank. (2009): 1- 245
  48. Latapi, Augustín and Mercedes González de la Rocha. "Girls, Mothers,and Poverty Reduction in Mexico: Evaluating Progresa-Oportunidades" in Shahra Razavi (ed.), "The Gendered Impacts of Liberalization: Towards 'Embedded Liberalism?' London and New York: Routledge: 267- 289.
  49. Latapi, Augustín and Mercedes González de la Rocha. "Girls, Mothers,and Poverty Reduction in Mexico: Evaluating Progresa- Oportunidades" in Shahra Razavi (ed.), "The Gendered Impacts of Liberalization: Towards 'Embedded Liberalism?'" London and New York: Routledge: 267- 289.
  50. Fizbein, Ariel and Norbert Shaby. "Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty." The World Bank. (2009): 1- 245.
  51. Moore, Charity. "Nicaragua's Red de Proteccion Social: An Exemplary but Short-lived Conditional Cash Transfer Program." International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, no.17, (2009): 1-42.
  52. 1 2 Moore, Charity. "Nicaragua's Red de Proteccion Social: An Exemplary but Short-lived Conditional Cash Transfer Program." International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, no.17, (2009): 40.
  53. Cohen, Mark and Dora Weissman. "Implementing a Conditional Cash Transfer Program In Haiti: Opportunities and Challenges." The International Food Policy Research Center. 2007
  54. Bosman, Julie. "City will stop paying poor for good behavior." New York Times. March 30, 2010
  55. Olken, Benjamin A., Junko Onishi, Susan Wong. "Should Aid Reward Performance? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Health and Education in Indonesia." Working Paper, MIT, August 2011.
  56. Brauw, Alan De, and John Hoddinott. "Must Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Be Conditioned to Be Effective? The Impact of Conditioning Transfers on School Enrollment in Mexico." Journal of Development Economics (2010). Print.
  57. Baird, Sarah, Craig McIntosh, and Berk Ozler. Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment. Working paper no. 5259. Vol. 45. World Bank, 2010. Print. Impact Evaluation Ser.
  58. Künnemann, Ralf and Ralf Leonhard. A Human Rights View of Social Cash Transfers for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Brot für die Welt, Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst, 2008.
  59. 1 2 3 4 5 Schubert, Bernd, and Mayke Huijbregts. The Malawi Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme, Preliminary Lessons Learned. Tech. New York: UNICEF, 2006. Print. Social Protection Initiatives for Children, Women and Families: An Analysis of Recent Experiences.
  60. "New Incentives | Model"

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/19/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.