Evaluating the Sustainability of the Productive Effects of a Universal Cash Transfer in Rural Uganda: Do Impacts on Savings, Investment, Production and Labour Persist After Program end?

Filippo Grisolia; Nathalie Holvoet; Sara Dewachter

doi:10.1515/bis-2023-0035

Enjoy 40% off

academic books on De Gruyter Brill *

Article

Evaluating the Sustainability of the Productive Effects of a Universal Cash Transfer in Rural Uganda: Do Impacts on Savings, Investment, Production and Labour Persist After Program end?

Filippo Grisolia , Nathalie Holvoet and Sara Dewachter

Published/Copyright: January 17, 2025

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Basic Income Studies Volume 20 Issue 1

Abstract

The productive impacts of cash transfer (CT) programs have not been widely studied, though interest in this area is growing, with existing evidence generally pointing to rather positive findings. Notably, one key takeaway from the (limited) available research is the debunking of a common criticism drawn against cash transfers and social assistance, more in general – namely, the assumption that social programs disincentivize or discourage work. Even less is known about the sustainability of CT impacts, as these interventions are typically designed as short-term programs. To address this gap, we conducted a quasi-experimental study of a universal unconditional cash transfer initiative in rural Uganda. Our study examined whether effects on savings, debt, investment, incomes, assets and labour allocation (if any) persisted after the end of the transfer. Despite the concurrent outbreak of COVID-19, our findings revealed several sustained impacts, particularly on savings, (agricultural) incomes and business ownership.

Keywords: cash transfers; basic income; savings; investment; labour; Uganda

Corresponding author: Filippo Grisolia, University of Antwerp Institute of Development Policy and Management, Lange Sint-Annastraat, 7, Antwerpen, 2000, Belgium, E-mail: filippo.grisolia@uantwerpen.be

Funding source: Universiteit Antwerpen

Award Identifier / Grant number: UA-BOF DOCPRO 2020-2024, ID 42168

Appendix

See Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6:

Sustainability of the effects on ‘savings, investment and production’. Matching coefficients by gender.

	Women						Men
	Midline		Endline		Follow-up		Midline		Endline		Follow-up
Variable [range]	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM
Savings

Money saved by the HH [0,1]	0.429*** (0.147) [72]	0.380*** (0.139) [56]	0.320** (0.159) [59]	0.377** (0.154) [43]	0.333** (0.155) [59]	0.131 (0.146) [58]	−0.391** (0.192) [49]	0.253 (0.188) [27]	−0.040 (0.146) [48]	−0.250* (0.131) [29]	−0.261 (0.183) [45]	0.112 (0.148) [39]
HH savings’ level (amount) [1,8]	1.074** (0.453) [69]	0.761 (0.539) [54]	1.200** (0.563) [59]	1.272** (0.620) [43]	0.957* (0.570) [51]	0.491 (0.508) [52]	0.435 (0.801) [48]	−0.793 (0.782) [26]	0.500 (0.659) [45]	−1.360** (0.570) [28]	0.333 (0.761) [44]	0.233 (0.551) [38]
Comparison with just before program start [−1,1]	0.815*** (0.226) [65]	0.937*** (0.217) [50]	0.640*** (0.226) [59]	0.439 (0.266) [43]	0.208 (0.273) [51]	0.449** (0.175) [50]	0.652** (0.288) [47]	0.659* (0.372) [26]	0.333 (0.309) [47]	0.154 (0.308) [28]	0.750** (0.285) [43]	0.852*** (0.243) [36]
Comparison pre-COVID situation with just before program start ⁺ [−1,1]					0.417 (0.264) [51]	0.408* (0.219) [50]					−0.042 (0.363) [41]	0.133 (0.303) [35]

Debt

HH debt’s level (amount) [1,8]	0.880 (0.572) [67]	0.618 (0.587) [52]	0.680 (0.676) [58]	0.281 (0.600) [43]	0.500 (0.618) [54]	0.524 (0.518) [54]	0.739 (0.944) [49]	−0.536 (0.872) [27]	0.217 (0.962) [46]	−0.607 (0.967) [29]	−1.348 (0.830) [45]	−1.123* (0.566) [40]
Comparison with just before program start [−1,1]	−0.148 (0.261) [66]	−0.147 (0.252) [52]	−0.280 (0.254) [58]	−0.289 (0.243) [43]	−0.417 (0.284) [53]	−0.119 (0.219) [52]	−0.680*** (0.248) [50]	−0.782** (0.295) [25]	−0.280 (0.340) [48]	−0.107 (0.298) [29]	−0.045 (0.343) [44]	0.208 (0.264) [39]

Investment

Money spent on investment⁺ [0,1]					0.250* (0.149) [58]	0.290** (0.135) [57]					0.500*** (0.137) [47]	0.469*** (0.139) [41]
Amount invested by the HH in agriculture since program start [1,8]	0.857*** (0.314) [71]	0.302 (0.309) [54]	0.000 (0.468) [57]	0.382 (0.228) [42]	−0.074 (0.369) [59]	0.110 (0.204) [57]	0.920 (0.653) [52]	−0.535 (0.556) [27]	−0.130 (0.494) [45]	−0.698 (0.531) [28]	−2.391** (1.117) [44]	−1.007 (0.691) [38]
Number of agricultural expenditure categories on which money was invested [0,4]	0.035 (0.229) [73]	−0.006 (0.209) [56]	−0.280 (0.221) [59]	−0.167 (0.294) [43]	−0.071 (0.094) [60]	−0.047 (0.094) [60]	−0.154 (0.282) [53]	−0.548** (0.225) [27]	−0.240 (0.333) [48]	−0.429 (0.294) [29]	−0.167 (0.164) [47]	−0.083 (0.065) [41]
Amount invested by the HH in non-agriculture since program start [1,8]	0.448 (0.319) [72]	0.495 (0.308) [55]	0.440 (0.280) [57]	0.418 (0.331) [42]	−0.148 (0.514) [53]	0.033 (0.307) [54]	0.680 (0.707) [50]	0.037 (0.823) [25]	0.364 (1.010) [45]	−0.286 (0.861) [29]	0.167 (0.698) [43]	−0.328 (0.709) [38]
Number of non-agricultural expenditure categories on which money was invested [0,4]	0.035 (0.035) [73]	−0.024 (0.084) [56]	−0.120 (0.099) [59]	−0.140 (0.144) [43]	0.071 (0.104) [60]	0.046 (0.061) [60]	0.039 (0.039) [53]	0.000 (0.000) [27]	−0.160 (0.120) [48]	−0.071 (0.072) [29]	−0.042 (0.099) [47]	−0.062 (0.086) [41]

Assets

Ownership of cultivated land [0,1]	0.250 (0.299) [69]	0.107 (0.254) [53]	0.080 (0.242) [58]	0.351** (0.171) [43]	0.071 (0.297) [60]	−0.007 (0.203) [60]	−0.231 (0.260) [53]	−0.339 (0.305) [27]	−0.130 (0.240) [46]	−0.016 (0.210) [28]	−0.130 (0.119) [46]	−0.063 (0.247) [39]
Total number of agricultural tools owned by the HH [1,6]	0.310 (0.222) [73]	0.222 (0.192) [56]	0.200 (0.244) [59]	−0.114 (0.141) [43]	0.071 (0.139) [60]	−0.206 (0.136) [60]	−0.385 (0.379) [53]	0.092 (0.279) [27]	0.240 (0.391) [48]	0.107 (0.330) [29]	−0.125 (0.341) [47]	0.031 (0.263) [41]

Business and enterprise

Ownership of currently operational business [0,1]	0.035 (0.139) [73]	0.085 (0.155) [56]	0.120 (0.147) [57]	0.128 (0.144) [42]	0.200* (0.107) [56]	0.167* (0.098) [57]	0.269* (0.155) [53]	0.023 (0.183) [27]	−0.125 (0.194) [47]	−0.036 (0.137) [29]	0.304 (0.196) [44]	−0.031 (0.169) [41]
Ownership of failed business [0,1]	−0.138 (0.122) [73]	0.051 (0.106) [56]	−0.200 (0.122) [57]	−0.287* (0.159) [42]	−0.240 (0.165) [56]	−0.237* (0.137) [57]	−0.077 (0.138) [53]	−0.038 (0.127) [27]	−0.250 (0.185) [47]	−0.250 (0.196) [29]	−0.391** (0.170) [44]	−0.156 (0.129) [41]
Having experienced negative effects of COVID-19 on business⁺ [0,1]					#N/A	−0.435 (0.319) [8]					−0.583** (0.275) [18]	−1.327 (0.778) [11]

*‘0.1’ **‘0.05’ ***‘0.01’. MDM, Mahalanobis Distance Matching; CEM, Coarsened Exact Matching. (Robust) standard errors in brackets, number of observations in squared parentheses. +follow-up-only variable.

Table 7:

Sustainability of the effects on ‘employment’. Matching coefficients by gender.^a

	Women						Men
	Midline		Endline		Follow-up		Midline		Endline		Follow-up
Variable [range]	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM	MDM	CEM
Agricultural labour

Average hours worked weekly [0+]	−2.828 (4.040) [73]	−0.463 (3.524) [56]	5.160 (6.390) [59]	6.675 (5.068) [43]	−2.231 (5.746) [60]	0.166 (4.372) [60]	0.462 (7.846) [53]	2.768 (7.149) [27]	−8.240 (5.482) [48]	−4.714 (4.477) [29]	−12.667** (5.488) [47]	−12.917*** (4.110) [41]
Comparison with just before program start [−1,1]	−0.286 (0.225) [70]	−0.209 (0.266) [55]	−0.208 (0.198) [56]	−0.335* (0.175) [41]	−0.143 (0.352) [33]	0.006 (0.257) [36]	−0.048 (0.262) [47]	−0.103 (0.335) [26]	−0.130 (0.264) [46]	−0.286 (0.221) [29]	0.833 (0.000) [20]	#N/A
Income level [1,6]	−0.143 (0.502) [70]	−0.514 (0.422) [55]	−0.792 (0.487) [55]	−0.002 (0.641) [40]	0.148 (0.416) [58]	0.450 (0.384) [58]	−1.652*** (0.538) [49]	−1.542*** (0.463) [27]	−1.120 (0.728) [48]	−1.964** (0.785) [29]	0.182 (0.478) [44]	0.104 (0.497) [37]
Comparison with just before program start [−1,1]	0.250 (0.257) [71]	0.008 (0.241) [55]	0.250 (0.228) [56]	0.168 (0.266) [41]	0.444** (0.188) [56]	0.397** (0.155) [56]	0.391 (0.314) [49]	0.492 (0.290) [27]	0.360* (0.209) [48]	0.393* (0.208) [29]	0.286 (0.214) [44]	0.299 (0.224) [37]

Non-agricultural labour

Average hours worked weekly [0+]	6.310 (6.492) [73]	6.929 (4.697) [56]	−2.960 (6.562) [59]	−6.333 (7.194) [43]	5.786 (4.815) [60]	−3.607 (5.507) [60]	−3.577 (11.101) [53]	3.295 (10.262) [27]	11.280* (6.173) [48]	7.964 (8.462) [29]	10.667 (8.229) [47]	−4.885 (6.054) [41]
Comparison with just before program start [−1,1]	0.269 (0.170) [65]	0.362* (0.191) [50]	0.083 (0.185) [56]	0.175 (0.172) [41]	−0.143 (0.254) [31]	−0.012 (0.249) [32]	−0.048 (0.262) [47]	−0.106 (0.209) [23]	0.042 (0.295) [47]	−0.107 (0.237) [29]	0.000 (0.000) [16]	#N/A
Income level [1,6]	0.464 (0.406) [72]	0.497 (0.353) [56]	−0.520 (0.521) [58]	−0.474 (0.716) [43]	0.269 (0.439) [56]	0.702* (0.402) [55]	0.087 (0.641) [48]	0.070 (0.562) [27]	0.545 (0.688) [45]	0.277 (0.646) [28]	1.042* (0.569) [44]	0.404 (0.448) [39]
Comparison with just before program start [−1,1]	0.259** (0.125) [70]	0.419** (0.177) [54]	−0.040 (0.178) [59]	−0.044 (0.201) [43]	0.143 (0.122) [58]	0.289** (0.124) [57]	−0.130 (0.259) [49]	−0.120 (0.302) [27]	0.250 (0.264) [47]	0.607** (0.248) [29]	0.435** (0.207) [43]	0.375** (0.156) [38]

Migration

Migration by any HH member since program start [0,1]	−0.125 (0.170) [60]	−0.117 (0.171) [45]	−0.320** (0.153) [56]	−0.149 (0.172) [41]	0.000 (0.201) [47]	0.203 (0.176) [42]	#N/A	#N/A	#N/A	#N/A	#N/A	#N/A

*‘0.1’ **‘0.05’ ***‘0.01’. MDM, Mahalanobis Distance Matching; CEM, Coarsened Exact Matching. (Robust) standard errors in brackets, number of observations in squared parentheses. ^aProxies of child labour were not disaggregated by gender. As a matter of fact, given that parents – not children – replied to the related questions, the gender of the respondent was not relevant in their case, for the purpose of heterogeneity analysis.

References

Alam, A., J. E. Baez, and X. V. Del Carpio. 2011. Does Cash for School Influence Young Women’s Behavior in the Longer Term? Evidence from Pakistan. Policy Research Paper No. 5669. Washington: World Bank. Available from: https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/5703/does-cash-for-school-influence-young-womens-behavior-in-the-longer-term-evidence-from-pakistan.10.1037/e602762012-001Search in Google Scholar

Altındağ, O., and S. D. O’Connell. 2023. “The Short-Lived Effects of Unconditional Cash Transfers to Refugees.” Journal of Development Economics 160: 102942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102942.Search in Google Scholar

Alzúa, M. L., G. Cruces, and L. Ripani. 2013. “Welfare Programs and Labor Supply in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Latin America.” Journal of Population Economics 26 (4): 1255–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-012-0458-0.Search in Google Scholar

Ardington, C., A. Case, and V. Hosegood. 2009. “Labor Supply Responses to Large Social Transfers: Longitudinal Evidence from South Africa.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (1): 22–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.1.22.Search in Google Scholar

Asfaw, S., B. Davis, J. Dewbre, S. Handa, and P. Winters. 2014. “Cash Transfer Programme, Productive Activities and Labour Supply: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Kenya.” Journal of Development Studies 50 (8): 1172–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.919383.Search in Google Scholar

Attanasio, O., E. Fitzsimons, A. Gomez, M. I. Gutiérrez, C. Meghir, and A. Mesnard. 2010. “Children’s Schooling and Work in the Presence of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Rural Colombia.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 58 (2): 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1086/648188.Search in Google Scholar

Avitabile, C., J. M. Cunha, and R. Meilman Cohn. 2019. The Medium Term Impacts of Cash and In-Kind Food Transfers on Learning. Policy Research Working Paper no. 9086. Washington: World Bank. Available from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/9cb82c34-e62e-5837-9835-46288aeca8a2.Search in Google Scholar

Baird, S., D. McKenzie, and B. Özler. 2018. “The Effects of Cash Transfers on Adult Labor Market Outcomes.” IZA Journal of Development and Migration 8 (1): 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-018-0131-9.Search in Google Scholar

Bandiera, O., R. Burgess, N. Das, S. Gulesci, I. Rasul, and M. Sulaiman. 2017. “Labor Markets and Poverty in Village Economies*.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 132 (2): 811–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx003.Search in Google Scholar

Banerjee, A. V., and E. Duflo. 2005. “Chapter 7 Growth Theory through the Lens of Development Economics.” In Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, edited by P. Aghion, and S. N. Durlauf (A c. Di), 473–552. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01007-5Search in Google Scholar

Banerjee, A., E. Duflo, N. Goldberg, D. Karlan, R. Osei, W. Parienté, J. Shapiro, B. Thuysbaert, and C. Udry. 2015. “A Multifaceted Program Causes Lasting Progress for the Very Poor: Evidence from Six Countries.” Science 348 (6236): 1260799. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260799.Search in Google Scholar

Banerjee, A. V., R. Hanna, G. E. Kreindler, and B. A. Olken. 2017. “Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs.” The World Bank Research Observer 32 (2): 155–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkx002.Search in Google Scholar

Barham, T., K. Macours, and J. A. Maluccio. 2018. “Are Conditional Cash Transfers Fulfilling Their Promise? Schooling, Learning, and Earnings after 10 Years.” In CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP11937. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). Available from: https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/macours-karen/bmm_2018_09_10_boys.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Barrientos, A. 2012. “Social Transfers and Growth: What Do We Know? what Do We Need to Find Out?” World Development 40 (1): 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.012.Search in Google Scholar

Barrientos, A., and J. M. Villa. 2013. Antipoverty Transfers and Labour Force Participation Effects. Working Paper No. 185. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2275291.10.2139/ssrn.2275291Search in Google Scholar

Bastagli, F., J. Hagen-Zanker, L. Harman, V. Barca, G. Sturge, and T. Schmidt. 2019. “The Impact of Cash Transfers: A Review of the Evidence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Journal of Social Policy 48 (3): 569–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279418000715.Search in Google Scholar

Bastagli, F., J. Hagen-Zanker, L. Harman, V. Barca, G. Sturge, T. Schmidt, and L. Pellerano. 2016. Cash Transfers: What Does the Evidence Say? A Rigorous Review of Program Impact and of the Role of Design and Implementation Features. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Oxford Policy Management (OPM). Available from: https://odi.org/en/publications/cash-transfers-what-does-the-evidence-say-a-rigorous-review-of-impacts-and-the-role-of-design-and-implementation-features/.Search in Google Scholar

Blattman, C., E. P. Green, J. Jamison, M. C. Lehmann, and J. Annan. 2016. “The Returns to Microenterprise Support Among the Ultrapoor: A Field Experiment in Postwar Uganda.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8 (2): 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150023.Search in Google Scholar

Boone, R., K. Covarrubias, B. Davis, and P. Winters. 2013. “Cash Transfer Programs and Agricultural Production: The Case of Malawi.” Agricultural Economics 44: 365–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12017.Search in Google Scholar

Cheema, I., S. Hunt, S. Javeed, T. Lone, and S. O’Leary. 2014. Benazir Income Support Programme: First Follow-Up Impact Evaluation Report. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management (OPM). Available from: https://www.opml.co.uk/files/Publications/7328-evaluating-pakistans-flagship-social-protection-programme-bisp/bisp-final-impact-evaluation-report.pdf?noredirect=1.Search in Google Scholar

Contreras Suarez, D., and L. Cameron. 2020. “Conditional Cash Transfers: Do They Result in More Patient Choices and Increased Educational Aspirations?” Economic Development and Cultural Change 68 (3): 729–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/701829.Search in Google Scholar

Covarrubias, K., B. Davis, and P. Winters. 2012. “From Protection to Production: Productive Impacts of the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 4 (1): 50–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2011.641995.Search in Google Scholar

Daidone, S., B. Davis, J. Dewbre, M. González-Flores, S. Handa, D. Seidenfeld, and G. Tembo. 2014. Zambia’s Child Grant Programme: 24-month Impact Report on Productive Activities and Labour Allocation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Available from: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/958d55dc-fc99-50fd-99cc-b393285efd6a/.Search in Google Scholar

Daidone, S., B. Davis, S. Handa, and P. Winters. 2019. “The Household and Individual-Level Productive Impacts of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-saharan Africa.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101 (5): 1401–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay113.Search in Google Scholar

Daidone, S., L. Pellerano, S. Handa, and B. Davis. 2015. “Is Graduation from Social Safety Nets Possible? Evidence from Sub-saharan Africa.” IDS Bulletin 46 (2): 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12132.Search in Google Scholar

Davala, S., R. Jhabvala, G. Standing, and S. K. Mehta. 2015. Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.10.5040/9781472593061Search in Google Scholar

Davis, B., S. Handa, N. Hypher, N. W. Rossi, P. Winters, and J. Yablonski. 2016. From Evidence to Action. The Story of Cash Transfers and Impact Evaluation in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: Oxford University Press, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Available from: https://www.unicef.nl/files/From%20Evidence%20to%20Action%20Rapport.pdf.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198769446.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

de Mel, S., D. McKenzie, and C. Woodruff. 2012. “One-Time Transfers of Cash or Capital Have Long-Lasting Effects on Microenterprises in Sri Lanka.” Science 335 (6071): 962–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212973.Search in Google Scholar

de Paz-Báñez, M. A., Asensio-Coto, M. J., Sánchez-López, C., & Aceytuno, M.-T. (2020). Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) Affects Labour Supply? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 12(22), Articolo 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229459.Search in Google Scholar

Devereux, S., and R. Sabates-Wheeler. 2004. “Transformative Social Protection.” In IDS Working Paper Series, No. 232, Brighton. Institute of Development Studies (IDS). Available from: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/4071.Search in Google Scholar

Devereux, S., and R. Sabates-Wheeler. 2015. “Graduating from Social Protection? Editorial Introduction.” IDS Bulletin 46 (2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12124.Search in Google Scholar

Devereux, S., and M. Ulrichs. 2015. “Stakeholder Perceptions on Graduation in Ethiopia and Rwanda.” IDS Bulletin 46 (2): 145–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12137.Search in Google Scholar

Egger, D., J. Haushofer, E. Miguel, P. Niehaus, and M. Walker. 2022. “General Equilibrium Effects of Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Kenya.” Econometrica 90 (6): 2603–43. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA17945.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198296959.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

EPAR. 2017. “Review of Evidence on Long-Term Impacts of Cash Transfer Program.” In: EPAR Technical Report #359. University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, Evans School Policy Analysis and Research (EPAR). Available from: https://epar.evans.uw.edu/blog/long-term-impacts-cash-transfer-programs-what-does-evidence-say#:∼:text=The%20majority%20of%20the%20evidence,increasing%20investment%20or%20women’s%20savings.Search in Google Scholar

FAO. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–11. Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/i2050e/i2050e00.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Fisher, E., R. Attah, V. Barca, C. O’Brien, S. Brook, J. Holland, A. Kardan, S. Pavanello, and P. Pozarny. 2017. “The Livelihood Impacts of Cash Transfers in Sub-saharan Africa: Beneficiary Perspectives from Six Countries.” World Development 99: 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.020.Search in Google Scholar

Francisco, C., A. Otto, and W. Van Lancker. 2024. “Labour Supply Reactions to Basic Income: Insights from 60 Years of Research.” Socio-Economic Review 22 (3): 1559–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwad076.Search in Google Scholar

Galiani, S., and P. J. McEwan. 2013. “The Heterogeneous Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers.” Journal of Public Economics 103: 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.04.004.Search in Google Scholar

Gentilini, U., M. Grosh, J. Rigolini, and R. Yemtsov. 2020. Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices. World Bank Publications. Washington: World Bank. Available from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/30d427b7-b1e4-5e37-9225-c7358492e057.10.1596/978-1-4648-1458-7Search in Google Scholar

Gertler, P. J., S. Martinez, P. Premand, L. B. Rawlings, and C. M. J. Vermeersch. 2016. Impact Evaluation in Practice. World Bank Publications. Washington: World Bank. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/sief-trust-fund/publication/impact-evaluation-in-practice.10.18235/0006529Search in Google Scholar

Gertler, P. J., S. W. Martinez, and M. Rubio-Codina. 2012. “Investing Cash Transfers to Raise Long-Term Living Standards.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4 (1): 164–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.4.1.164.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, M., W. Hearty, and P. Craig. 2018. “Potential Effects of Universal Basic Income: A Scoping Review of Evidence on Impacts and Study Characteristics.” The Lancet 392: S36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32083-X.Search in Google Scholar

Grisolia, F. 2024a. Can Cash Transfers Really be Transformative? A Literature Review of the Sustainability of Their Impacts. IOB Discussion Paper 2024.02. University of Antwerp: Institute of Development Policy. Available from: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/70ffe5motoM8d.Search in Google Scholar

Grisolia, F. 2024b. Exploring the Sustainability of the Collective-Level Effects of Cash Transfers: Insights from Universal Unconditional CT Programs in Rural Western Uganda [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Antwerp: Institute of Development Policy. Available from: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:25129.Search in Google Scholar

Grisolia, F., S. Dewachter, and N. Holvoet. 2023. “Follow the Hand that Feeds you? The Effects of Non-Governmental Cash Transfers on Citizenship.” Social Policy & Administration 57 (6): 976–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12914.Search in Google Scholar

Hahn, Y., A. Islam, K. Nuzhat, R. Smyth, and H.-S. Yang. 2018. “Education, Marriage, and Fertility: Long-Term Evidence from a Female Stipend Program in Bangladesh.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 66 (2): 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1086/694930.Search in Google Scholar

Hajdu, F., S. Granlund, D. Neves, T. Hochfeld, F. Amuakwa-Mensah, and E. Sandström. 2020. “Cash Transfers for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods? Examining the Long-Term Productive Effects of the Child Support Grant in South Africa.” World Development Perspectives 19: 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100227.Search in Google Scholar

Hajdu, F., L. van Blerk, N. Ansell, R. Hemsteede, E. Mwathunga, T. Hlabana, and E. Robson. 2024. “Livelihood Trajectories of Rural Young People in Southern Africa: Stuck in Loops?” Development and Change 55 (3): 465–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12826.Search in Google Scholar

Ham, A., and H. C. Michelson. 2018. “Does the Form of Delivering Incentives in Conditional Cash Transfers Matter over a Decade Later?” Journal of Development Economics 134: 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.05.007.Search in Google Scholar

Handa, S., S. Daidone, A. Peterman, B. Davis, A. Pereira, T. Palermo, and J. Yablonski. 2018. “Myth-Busting? Confronting Six Common Perceptions about Unconditional Cash Transfers as a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Africa.” The World Bank Research Observer 33 (2): 259–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky003.Search in Google Scholar

Handa, S., L. Natali, D. Seidenfeld, G. Tembo, and B. Davis. 2018. “Can Unconditional Cash Transfers Raise Long-Term Living Standards? Evidence from Zambia.” Journal of Development Economics 133: 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.01.008.Search in Google Scholar

Hashemi, S. M., and W. Umaira. 2011. New Pathways for the Poorest: The Graduation Model from BRAC. United Kingdom: BRAC Develoment Institute, Centre for Social Protection (CSP). Available from: https://gsdrc.org/document-library/new-pathways-for-the-poorest-the-graduation-model-from-brac/.Search in Google Scholar

Haushofer, J., and J. Shapiro. 2018. The Long-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. Working Paper. Princeton: Princeton University. Available from: https://jeremypshapiro.appspot.com/papers/Haushofer_Shapiro_UCT2_2018-01-30_paper_only.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Iacus, S. M., G. King, and G. Porro. 2012. “Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching.” Political Analysis 20 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013.Search in Google Scholar

Kabeer, N., C. Piza, and L. Taylor. 2012. What are the Economic Impacts of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs? A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Technical Report. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Available from: https://gsdrc.org/document-library/what-are-the-economic-impacts-of-conditional-cash-transfer-programmes-a-systematic-review-of-the-evidence/.Search in Google Scholar

Kassouf, A. L., & de Oliveira, P. (2012). “Impact evaluation of the Brazilian non-contributory pension program Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC) on family welfare.” PEP Working Paper 2012–12. Nairobi: Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP). Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2374388.Search in Google Scholar

King, G., and R. Nielsen. 2019. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching.” Political Analysis 27 (4): 435–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.Search in Google Scholar

King, G., R. Nielsen, C. Coberley, J. E. Pope, and A. Wells. 2011. Comparative Effectiveness of Matching Methods for Causal Inference. Unpublished Manuscript, Institute for Quantitative Social Science. Cambridge: Harvard University. https://gking.harvard.edu/files/psparadox.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Maluccio, J. A. 2010. “The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Consumption and Investment in Nicaragua.” Journal of Development Studies 46 (1): 14–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380903197952.Search in Google Scholar

Merttens, F., E. Sindou, A. Lipcan, L. Pellerano, M. Binci, S. Ssewanyana, S. Neema, et al.. 2016. Evaluation of the Uganda Social Assistance Grants for Empowerment (SAGE) Program – Impact After Two Years of Program Operations 2012–2014 Final Report. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management (OPM). Available from: file:///C:/Users/filip/Downloads/OPM_SAGE_endline_report.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Molina Millán, T., T. Barham, K. Macours, J. A. Maluccio, and M. Stampini. 2019. “Long-Term Impacts of Conditional Cash Transfers: Review of the Evidence.” The World Bank Research Observer 34 (1): 119–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky005.Search in Google Scholar

Molyneux, M., N. Jones, and F. Samuels. 2016. “Can Cash Transfer Programmes Have ‘Transformative’ Effects?” Journal of Development Studies 52 (8): 1087–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1134781.Search in Google Scholar

Mutua, M. M. 2023. Examining the Sustainable Effects of Cash Transfers on Gender Dynamics, Empowerment, and Resilience: Evidence from Rural Uganda [Master thesis]. University of Antwerp: Institute of Development Policy. Available from: https://anet.uantwerpen.be/desktop/uantwerpen.Search in Google Scholar

Neidhöfer, G., and M. Niño-Zarazúa. 2019. “The Long(er)-Term Impacts of «Chile Solidario» on Human Capital and Labor Income.” Population and Development Review 45: 209–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12274.Search in Google Scholar

Nimon, K., D. Zigarmi, and J. Allen. 2011. “Measures of Program Effectiveness Based on Retrospective Pretest Data: Are All Created Equal?” American Journal of Evaluation 32 (1): 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010378354.Search in Google Scholar

O’Brien, C., M. Marzi, L. Pellerano, and A. Visram. 2013. Kazakhstan: External Evaluation of BOTA Programmes: The Impact of BOTA’s Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Programme 2011–2012. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management (OPM). Available from: https://www.opml.co.uk/files/Publications/6838-bota-programmes-kazakhstan/cct-follow-up-quantitative-report.pdf?noredirect=1.Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2021. Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/dac/applying-evaluation-criteria-thoughtfully-543e84ed-en.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Oliveira, G. L., and A. L. S. Chagas. 2020. Long-Term Effects of Conditional Cash Transfers on Children: The Brazilian Case. Working Papers. São Paulo: FEA-USP. Available from: https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/12/12138/tde-14012021-201300/publico/GabrielLyriodeOliveiraCorrigida.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Parker, S. W., and T. Vogl. 2018. Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Economic Outcomes in the Next Generation? Evidence from Mexico. Working Paper. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Available from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24303.10.3386/w24303Search in Google Scholar

Peterman, A., J. A. Behrman, and A. R. Quisumbing. 2010. A Review of Empirical Evidence on Gender Differences in Nonland Agricultural Inputs, Technology, and Services in Developing Countries. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00975. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Available from: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/review-empirical-evidence-gender-differences-nonland-agricultural-inputs-technology-and.Search in Google Scholar

Pirracchio, R., M. Resche-Rigon, and S. Chevret. 2012. “Evaluation of the Propensity Score Methods for Estimating Marginal Odds Ratios in Case of Small Sample Size.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 12 (1): 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-70.Search in Google Scholar

Pratt, C. C., W. M. McGuigan, and A. R. Katzev. 2000. “Measuring Program Outcomes: Using Retrospective Pretest Methodology.” American Journal of Evaluation 21 (3): 341–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(00)00089-8.Search in Google Scholar

Prifti, E., S. Daidone, and B. Davis. 2019. “Causal Pathways of the Productive Impacts of Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Lesotho.” World Development 115: 258–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.020.Search in Google Scholar

Prifti, E., E. Estruch, S. Daidone, D. Davis, P. Van Ufford, S. Michelo, S. Handa, D. Seidenfeld, and T. Gelson. 2017. “Learning about Labour Impacts of Cash Transfers in Zambia.” Journal of African Economies 26 (4): 433–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejx005.Search in Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Oreggia, E., and S. Freije. 2012. Long Term Impact of a Cash Transfers Program on Labor Outcomes of the Rural Youth in Mexico. Harvard CID Working Paper No. 230. Cambridge: Harvard University. Available from: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/long-term-impact-cash-transfers-program-labor-outcomes-rural-youth.Search in Google Scholar

Roelen, K., and S. Devereux. 2019. “Money and the Message: The Role of Training and Coaching in Graduation Programming.” Journal of Development Studies 55 (6): 1121–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1475648.Search in Google Scholar

Roelen, K., S. Devereux, A.-G. Abdulai, B. Martorano, T. Palermo, and L. P. Ragno. 2017. How to Make ‘Cash Plus’ Work: Linking Cash Transfers to Services and Sectors. Innocenti Working Paper 2017-10. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. Available from: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/915-how-to-make-cash-plus-work-linking-cash-transfers-to-services-and-sectors.html.Search in Google Scholar

Rosati, F. C. (2022). “Can Cash Transfers Reduce Child Labor?” IZA World of Labor. Article no. 293. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.293.Search in Google Scholar

Sabates-Wheeler, R., and S. Devereux. 2013. “Sustainable Graduation from Social Protection Programmes.” Development and Change 44 (4): 911–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12047.Search in Google Scholar

Sabates‐Wheeler, R., R. Sabates, and S. Devereux. 2018. “Enabling Graduation for Whom? Identifying and Explaining Heterogeneity in Livelihood Trajectories Post‐Cash Transfer Exposure.” Journal of International Development 30 (7): 1071–95, https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3369.Search in Google Scholar

Schwab, B. 2019. “Comparing the Productive Effects of Cash and Food Transfers in a Crisis Setting: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Yemen.” Journal of Development Studies 55 (sup1): 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1687880.Search in Google Scholar

Sedlmayr, R., A. Shah, and M. Sulaiman. 2020. “Cash-plus: Poverty Impacts of Alternative Transfer-Based Approaches.” Journal of Development Economics 144: 102418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.102418.Search in Google Scholar

Sen, A. 1997. “Editorial: Human Capital and Human Capability.” World Development 25 (12): 1959–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(97)10014-6.Search in Google Scholar

Stanford Basic Income Lab. n.d. Global Map of Basic Income Experiments. Consulted December 16, 2024. Available from: https://basicincome.stanford.edu/experiments-map/.Search in Google Scholar

Stoeffler, Q., B. Mills, and P. Premand. 2020. “Poor Households’ Productive Investments of Cash Transfers: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Niger.” Journal of African Economies 29 (1): 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejz017.Search in Google Scholar

Tirivayi, N., M. Knowles, and B. Davis. 2016. “The Interaction between Social Protection and Agriculture: A Review of Evidence.” Global Food Security 10: 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.004.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-09-11

Accepted: 2025-01-03

Published Online: 2025-01-17

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2023-0035

Keywords for this article

cash transfers; basic income; savings; investment; labour; Uganda