The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?

Over 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated b...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Gentilini, Ugo
Format:	Book
Language:	English en_US
Published:	Washington, DC: World Bank 2016
Subjects:	CASH TRANSFERS COSTS DISASTERS FOOD AID IMPACTS DELIVERY HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE CRISES RISK VOUCHERS SHOCKS MARKETS
Online Access:	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24593

id	okr-10986-24593
recordtype	oai_dc
spelling	okr-10986-245932021-04-23T14:04:22Z The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations? Gentilini, Ugo CASH TRANSFERS COSTS DISASTERS FOOD AID IMPACTS DELIVERY HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE CRISES RISK VOUCHERS SHOCKS MARKETS Over 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated by several actors, and for good reasons: they have the potential to provide choice, empower people, and spark economic multipliers. But what is their comparative performance relative to in-kind transfers? Are there objectives for which there are particular evidence gaps? And what should be considered when choosing between those forms of assistance? This paper is one of the first reviews examining those questions across humanitarian sectors and in relation to multiple forms of assistance, including cash, vouchers, and in-kind assistance (food and non-food). These were assessed based on solid impact evaluations and through the lens of food security, nutrition, livelihoods, health, education, and shelter objectives. The paper finds that there is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. This ranges from areas where evidence is substantial (i.e., food security) to realms where it is limited (i.e., nutrition) or where not a single comparative evaluation was available (i.e., health, education, and shelter). Where evidence is substantial, data shows that the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average. In terms of costs, cash is generally more efficient to delivery. However, overall costs would hinge on the scale of interventions, crisis context, procurement practices, and a range of ‘hidden costs’. In other words, the appropriateness of transfers cannot be predetermined and should emerge from response analysis that considers program objectives, the level of market functionality, predicted cost-effectiveness, implementation capacity, the management of key risks such as on protection and gender, political economy, beneficiary preferences, and resource availability. Finally, it seems possible (and necessary) to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with solid research to inform decision-making, especially on dimensions beyond food security. 2016-06-22T19:58:37Z 2016-06-22T19:58:37Z 2016-06-08 Book 978-1-4648-0910-1 http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24593 English en_US World Bank Studies; CC BY 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ World Bank Washington, DC: World Bank Publications & Research Publications & Research :: Publication
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Foreign Institution
institution	Digital Repositories
building	World Bank Open Knowledge Repository
collection	World Bank
language	English en_US
topic	CASH TRANSFERS COSTS DISASTERS FOOD AID IMPACTS DELIVERY HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE CRISES RISK VOUCHERS SHOCKS MARKETS
spellingShingle	CASH TRANSFERS COSTS DISASTERS FOOD AID IMPACTS DELIVERY HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE CRISES RISK VOUCHERS SHOCKS MARKETS Gentilini, Ugo The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
relation	World Bank Studies;
description	Over 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated by several actors, and for good reasons: they have the potential to provide choice, empower people, and spark economic multipliers. But what is their comparative performance relative to in-kind transfers? Are there objectives for which there are particular evidence gaps? And what should be considered when choosing between those forms of assistance? This paper is one of the first reviews examining those questions across humanitarian sectors and in relation to multiple forms of assistance, including cash, vouchers, and in-kind assistance (food and non-food). These were assessed based on solid impact evaluations and through the lens of food security, nutrition, livelihoods, health, education, and shelter objectives. The paper finds that there is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. This ranges from areas where evidence is substantial (i.e., food security) to realms where it is limited (i.e., nutrition) or where not a single comparative evaluation was available (i.e., health, education, and shelter). Where evidence is substantial, data shows that the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average. In terms of costs, cash is generally more efficient to delivery. However, overall costs would hinge on the scale of interventions, crisis context, procurement practices, and a range of ‘hidden costs’. In other words, the appropriateness of transfers cannot be predetermined and should emerge from response analysis that considers program objectives, the level of market functionality, predicted cost-effectiveness, implementation capacity, the management of key risks such as on protection and gender, political economy, beneficiary preferences, and resource availability. Finally, it seems possible (and necessary) to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with solid research to inform decision-making, especially on dimensions beyond food security.
format	Book
author	Gentilini, Ugo
author_facet	Gentilini, Ugo
author_sort	Gentilini, Ugo
title	The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
title_short	The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
title_full	The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
title_fullStr	The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
title_full_unstemmed	The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
title_sort	other side of the coin : the comparative evidence of cash and in-kind transfers in humanitarian situations?
publisher	Washington, DC: World Bank
publishDate	2016
url	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24593
_version_	1764457135464251392

The Other Side of the Coin : The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?

Similar Items