2. Review of Literature
3.3 Definition of a cash transfer
Orozco Corona and Gammage (2017) define cash transfers as programmes where the government and donors give cash directly to targeted poor people. Cash transfer policies have increasingly become a popular social protection strategy used by both the developed world and developing countries to protect and cushion their citizens against severe poverty, vulnerability
41
and inequality (Miroro, 2016). Although many authors vary in the way they view cash transfers as a social protection tool, one thing they all agree upon is that cash transfers’ main objective is to reduce vulnerability and improving living and economic standards of the poorest members of society through a direct injection of cash (Catubig et al., 2015; MCCTP, 2016; Handa et al., 2016; Lumbasi, 2018).
3.3.1. Cash transfers as a social protection strategy.
In recent times, communities with chronic poverty have been getting direct cash injection as a form of social protection (Orozco Corona & Gammage, 2017). Non-governmental organisations stopped giving their beneficiaries food; instead, they opted for cash transfers as the most appropriate form of social assistance to populations at risk of hunger (UNICEF 2020).
The change from food to cash directly addressed the needs of the people. Many organisations confirmed that the food items issued were often diverted to the open market for resale. Clearly, the donor would have realised the differentiated needs of the target individuals and therefore strove to redress the anomalies (MCCTPT, 2016).
However, the cash transfer approach was accompanied by calls for more far-reaching or
‘transformative’ social protection interventions that would bring about positive, lasting changes in the lives of ultra-poor (Orozco Corona & Gammage, 2017). This would involve measures designed to help people move out of poverty by providing training and income generation schemes, and designing programmes that addressed the contextual specificity and multi-dimensional nature of poverty and vulnerability. In other words, a key aspect of any transformative programme, would be the measures it took to tackle the causes of poverty. For some authors this also involved empowering the poor to tackle oppressive social relations, and treating poor people as citizens with rights, with a voice in programme design and implementation (Kabeer, 2015; Molyneux, 2016).
3.3.1.1 Approaches used to manage the cash transfers in Brazil
BolsaFamilia is one of the world’s largest conditional cash transfer programmes present, with 13.8 million poverty stricken households benefiting (Adato & Hoddinott, 2018). The programme was introduced in 2003 by the former President of Brazil LuizInacio Lula da Silva as a social policy. The cash transfer’s mandate was to merge existing social assistance programmes, reduce administrative costs and expand eligibility while reducing poverty.
Furthermore, Cash Transfers’ aim was to promote food security and increase access to public services, specially health and education (Adato & Hoddinott, 2018; Hassan, 2017).
42
BolsaFamilia cash transfers were issued to beneficiaries according to rules established and adjusted by the Ministry of Social Development that distinguish households living in poverty and extreme poverty (Adato & Hoddinott, 2010). The BolsaFamilia is administered jointly by the federal government and municipalities. However, the Ministry of Social Development performs the lead functions in the selection of beneficiaries and coordination with the Ministries of Health and Education making sure that beneficiaries are paid through state-owned bank Caixa Economica Federal (Adato & Hoddinott, 2018). All households that received the cash transfer including children, pregnant women or breastfeeding mothers, were required to comply with conditions such as regular school attendance, prenatal care, health visits, vaccinations and growth monitoring to ensure a continual in receiving benefits (Adato &
Hoddinott, 2018).
3.3.1.2 India’s cash transfer administration
In India policy makers had an impasse on the right candidate to receive the cash transfers in the end they gave the parliament the responsibility of naming the targets (FAO, 2015). The parliament voted that everyone in India deserved social protection and 75 percent rural poor and 50 percent urban poor were supposed to benefit be it citizens or not citizens as long as they resided in the borders of India (FAO, 2015). With India’s huge population which encompass documented and undocumented people implementation became a problem as most people were excluded particularly immigrants, homeless populations, forest dwellers and those residing in remote areas. The main reason for their exclusion was lack of documentation which officials needed even if the law did not require the documents, auditors needed them for accountability (FAO; 2015).
3.3.1.3 Strategies used to administer cash transfers in Zambia
Zambia’s Social Cash Transfer, between the year 2003 and 2010 followed the ultra-poor approach. The ultra-poor approach aimed at covering 10 percent of the poorest people in the allocated districts (Habasonda, 2009; Chiwele, 2010; AIR, 2013). The cash transfer beneficiaries were selected solely through community-based selection mechanisms, which looked for the poorest household in the community to benefit first, except for the Katete pilot which was meant to be a pension fund for the elderly (Habasonda, 2009; Chiwele, 2010).
Zambia’s Social Cash Transfer modality helped to break poverty amongst ultra-poor households through a direct cash injection that increased food security, enhanced living conditions, spurred productivity and ownership of productive assets (AIR, 2013).
43
3.3.1.4 Strategies used to administer cash transfers in Zimbabwe
In Zimbabwe, as a way of mitigating poverty in households, the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare introduced unconditional cash transfer in 2011 called the Harmonized Social Cash Transfer (HSCT) (UNICEF, 2020). The cash transfer was targeted to feed the poor and labour-constrained households allowing the beneficiaries to live above the poverty line through giving them a direct income to reduce the number of problems that these households and communities where facing (Nyathi & Thobejane 2018T). Poverty and extreme poverty in Zimbabwe is not limited to unemployed people, since most people work in agricultural activities that yield low and volatile incomes (Rubhara et. al., 2020; GoZ, 2016).
Over 2 million people in rural areas which is 22 percent of the rural population are food insecure especially in female-headed households and child labour was becoming more predominant from 28.9 percent to 23 percent (GoZ, 2016). Hence, the cash transfer’s main objective was to help beneficiaries by reducing child labour, early marriages, improving nutritional status, health and educational outcomes especially in female-headed households (Luisa & Fidelia, 2019).The purpose of the harmonized Social Cash Transfer (HSCT )’s purpose was to operate in harmony with its predecessor the Social Welfare and Its mandate was to combine the case management and referral support by social workers at the local level and incorporate registries from various initiatives responsible for identifying vulnerabilities (Thome et. al., 2016; Bhalla et. al., 2016). Therefore, allowing for an automatic identification of eligible beneficiaries to service providers such as government or NGOs (Thome et. al., 2016;
Bhalla et. al., 2016).