Examining Conditional Cash Transfer Programs : A Role for Increased Social Inclusion?
Conditional Cash Transfer programs (CCTs) provide money to poor families contingent upon certain verifiable actions, generally minimum investments in children s human capital such as regular school attendance or basic preventative health care. They...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Working Paper |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2014
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2006/06/20170396/examining-conditional-cash-transfer-programs-role-increased-social-inclusion http://hdl.handle.net/10986/20204 |
Summary: | Conditional Cash Transfer programs
(CCTs) provide money to poor families contingent upon
certain verifiable actions, generally minimum investments in
children s human capital such as regular school attendance
or basic preventative health care. They therefore hold
promise for addressing the inter-generational transmission
of poverty and fostering social inclusion by explicitly
targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering
transfers to women, and changing social accountability
relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and
governments. CCT programs are at the forefront of applying
new social policy theories and program administration
practices. They address demand-side barriers, have a
synergistic focus on investments in health, education and
nutrition, and combine short-term transfers for income
support with incentives for long-run investments in human
capital. They also are public sector leaders in program
administration, using modern targeting, registering, and
monitoring systems along with strategic evaluations. Their
impact depends on the supply of quality, accessible health
and education services and may increase with strengthened
links to the labor market, and a greater focus on early
childhood and transient support to households facing shocks.
CCT programs are facing a number of challenges as they
evolve, from reaching vulnerable groups to fostering
transparency and accountability, especially at the community
level. Centralized programs have been criticized for
limiting the engagement of local governments and civil
society and it is clear that in limited capacity
environments, a greater reliance on communities is
warranted. In sum, though promising, these programs are not
a panacea against social exclusion and should form part of
comprehensive social and economic policy strategies and be
applied carefully in different policy contexts. |
---|