@seunonigbinde You raise good points in your thread. However, ideological arguments about Conditional and Unconditional Cash Transfers have raged since the 1990s. They are perhaps THE MOST EVALUATED schemes in all of Development. Do they work? Let’s look at the evidence. Thread.
First, some definitions for those who may be unfamiliar with the terms. Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) is when you give money to people or families on the condition that they take certain action. Such actions include sending their kids to school or getting them immunised.
There is ample evidence from around the world that CCTs work, from Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Peru and many other countries. They are effective in increasing school enrollment and improving child health for BOTH current and future generations and reducing feminization of poverty.
In a country like Nigeria with the highest number of out-of-school children in the world and high child and maternal deaths, particularly in northern Nigeria, it should clear why CCT should be considered, and why describing it “stomach infrastructure” may be quite uncharitable.
Of course, the issue in a country like ours is the risk that we would rather just give the money and not enforce the conditions like school enrollment, vaccinations and attending antenatal classes. So let’s look next at Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCTs). Do they work?
Again, definitions: Unconditional Cash Transfer is when you give cash to poor people and families with no conditions attached. They’re often used as a social protection tool to address the poorest of the poor, the disabled and the elderly. Some, too hungry to meet any conditions.
So, do Unconditional Cash Transfers work? These have not been studied as much as Conditional Cash Transfers. The largest study I am aware of, to date, was done by researchers from Harvard and Columbia reviewed a number of studies, including those using Randomised Control Trials.
They found that Unconditional Cash Transfers DO NOT encourage the poor to access health and educational facilities. However, recipient families are 27% less likely to fall sick. Their kids are also more likely to eat better and be less stunted. The families have more dignity.
So, properly used, both Conditional and Unconditional Cash Transfers can be effective in improving the lives of the very poor, encouraging better behavior and responding to the basic physiological need to eat and not to die of preventable disease. They shouldn’t be dismissed.
However, the problem in a country like Nigeria is that we don’t have a credible, comprehensive, identity management system. Without that, we had legislators including Cash Transfers as part of their Constituency Projects under MDGs, and insisting they personally know all the poor
This, of course renders it open to abuse and can turn it into “stomach infrastructure” for election purposes. Perhaps we could dedicate part of this Abacha loot to building a stronger national identity management system to enable us to run CCTs and UCTs better in the future.
Until then, we must remember that the fact that a scheme is open to abuse does not invalidate the effectiveness of that scheme. The task is to design ways to constrain that abuse. Right wing Economists will have an ideological problem with both schemes. They are often wrong. End!
