Person:
Gentilini, Ugo
Author Name Variants
Fields of Specialization
Social protection,
Welfare economics,
Development economics,
Agricultural economics,
Labor markets
Degrees
External Links
Departments
Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice
Externally Hosted Work
Contact Information
Last updated
January 31, 2023
Biography
Ugo Gentilini serves as Global Lead for Social Assistance at the World Bank’s Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice. He has 20 years of experience in the analytics,
practice, and evaluation of social protection systems, particularly in the realm of cash transfers, food assistance, price subsidies, public works, and select active labor market
policies. His publications encompass flagship reports, edited volumes, academic journals, and operational guidelines, covering labor markets, urbanization, agriculture,
food security, nutrition, subsidy reforms, crisis preparedness and response, and mobility. Ugo holds a PhD in development economics, blogs frequently, and produces a newsletter on social protection (ugogentilini.net) reaching thousands of practitioners on a weekly basis.
Publication Search Results
1 - 10 of 20
-
Publication
Our Daily Bread : What is the Evidence on Comparing Cash versus Food Transfers?
(World Bank Group, Washington, DC, 2014-07)This paper reviews key issues in the 'cash versus food' debate, including as they relate to political economy, theory, evidence, and practice. In doing so, it benefited from a new generation of 12 impact evaluations deliberately comparing alternative transfer modalities. Findings show that differences in effectiveness vary by indicator, although they tend to be moderate on average. In some cases differences are more marked (i.e., food consumption and calorie availability), but in most instances they are not statistically significant. In general, transfers' performance and their difference seem a function of the organic and fluid interactions among factors like the profile and 'initial conditions' of beneficiaries, the capacity of local markets, and program objectives and design. Costs associated with cash transfers and vouchers tend to be substantially lower relative to food. Yet methods for cost-effectiveness analysis vary and need to be more standardized and nuanced. The reviewed evaluations are helping to shift the debate from one shaped by ideology, political economy and 'inference' of evidence to one centering on robust and context-specific results. -
Publication
Entering the City: Emerging Evidence and Practices with Safety Nets in Urban Areas
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015-07)Most safety net programs in low and middle-income countries have hitherto been conceived for rural areas. Yet as the global urban population increases and poverty urbanizes, it becomes of utmost importance to understand how to make safety nets work in urban settings. This paper discusses the process of urbanization, the peculiar features of urban poverty, and emerging experiences with urban safety net programs in dozens of countries. It does so by reviewing multidisciplinary literature, examining household survey data, and presenting a compilation of case studies from a ‘first generation’ of programs. The paper finds that urban areas pose fundamentally different sets of opportunities and challenges for social protection, and that safety net programs are at the very beginning of a process of urban adaptation. The mixed-performance and preliminary nature of the experiences suggest putting a premium on learning and evidence-generation. This might include revisiting some key design choices and better connecting safety nets to spatial, economic and social services agendas compelling to urban areas. -
Publication
The Revival of the "Cash versus Food" Debate: New Evidence for an Old Quandary?
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-02)The longstanding “cash versus food” debate has received renewed attention in both research and practice. This paper reviews key issues shaping the debate and presents new evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental evaluations that deliberately compare cash and in-kind food transfers in ten developing counties. Findings show that relative effectiveness cannot be generalized: although some differences emerge in terms of food consumption and dietary diversity, average impacts tend to depend on context, specific objectives, and their measurement. Costs for cash transfers and vouchers tend to be significantly lower relative to in-kind food. Yet the consistency and robustness of methods for efficiency analyses varies greatly. -
Publication
Cash in the City: Emerging Lessons from Implementing Cash Transfers in Urban Africa
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2021-01)Poverty and crises are rapidly “urbanizing†. Yet experience with operationalizing cash transfers in urban areas is limited. This paper captures early lessons from a new generation of urban cash transfer responses to Covid-19 in eleven African countries. The analysis contextualizes such initiatives within a longer-term trajectory of urban social protection programs from the early 2000s. A range of lessons emerge around design and implementation, partnerships, institutions and political economy, strategic issues, and evidence and learning. -
Publication
Urban Social Assistance: Emerging Insights from Three African Countries
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-12-01)As countries implement social assistance (or safety net) programs, a range of technicalhurdles can affect their implementation differently in rural and urban areas. In urban areas,the focus of this study, cost of living can be higher and more prone to economic slowdowns.Poverty can be more severe than in rural areas and accompanied by high malnutrition rates.Implementation challenges in most urban areas relate to the lack of proper identification,outreach, intake, and registration of potential beneficiaries. These are in part due to thelack of social cohesion and different channels of communication. Therefore, social workersare likely to play an even more fundamental role in program implementation and M&Eprocesses. -
Publication
Urban Safety Nets – Experiences from Three Countries: Benin, Republic of Congo, and Mali
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-12)As countries implement social safety nets programs, a range of technical hurdles affects their implementation differently in rural and urban areas. In urban areas, the focus of this study, living in is expensive and more vulnerable at economy slowdowns. Poverty can be more severe than in rural areas and accompanied by high malnutrition rates. Challenges faced by poor populations in most urban areas related to the lack of proper identification,outreach, intake and registration of potential beneficiaries in part due to the lack of social cohesion and the existence of multiple channels of communication, challenging the delivery of any messages quickly and efficiently. Therefore social workers have a fundamental part during program implementation and Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) process. -
Publication
The Other Side of the Coin: The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2016-06-08)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. -
Publication
The 1.5 Billion People Question: Food, Vouchers, or Cash Transfers?
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2018)Most of the people in low and middle-income countries covered by social protection receive assistance in the form of in-kind food. The origin of such support is rooted in countries’ historical pursuit of three interconnected objectives, namely attaining self-sufficiency in food, managing domestic food prices, and providing income support to the poor. This volume sheds light on the complex, bumpy and non-linear process of how some flagship food-based social protection programs have evolved over time, and how they currently work. In particular, it lays out the broad trends in reforms, including a growing move from in-kind modalities to cash transfers, from universality to targeting, and from agriculture to social protection. Case studies from Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, and United States document the specific experiences of managing the process of reform and implementation, including enhancing our understanding of the opportunities and challenges with different social protection transfer modalities. -
Publication
Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19: A Real-Time Review of Country Measures
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-04-17)Some key finds from this "living paper" include : As of April 23, 2020, a total of 151 countries (18 more since last week) have planned, introduced or adapted 684 social protection measures in response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus). This is a ten-fold increase in measures since the first edition of this living paper (March 20). New countries include Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belarus, Bermuda, Brunei, Chad, Grenada, Libya, Montserrat, Nigeria, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, St Maarten, and UAE. Social assistance transfers are the most widely used class of interventions (60 percent of global responses, or 412 measures). These are complemented by significant action in social insurance and labor market-related measures (supply-side measures). Among safety nets, cash transfer programs remain the most widely used safety net intervention by governments (table 1 and figure 2). Overall, cash transfers include 222 COVID-related measures representing one-third (32.4 percent) of total COVID-related social protection programs. Cash transfers include a mix of both new and pre-existing programs of various duration and generosity. About half (47 percent) of cash transfers are new programs in 78 countries (reaching 512.6 million people), while one-fifth (22 percent) of measures are one-off payments. The average duration of transfers is 2.9 months. The size of transfers is relatively generous, or one-fifth (22 percent) of monthly GDP per capita in respective countries. On average, this is an increase of 86.6 percent compared to average pre-COVID transfer levels (where data is available for a subset of countries). -
Publication
Protecting All: Risk Sharing for a Diverse and Diversifying World of Work
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2019-09-09)This white paper focusses on the policy interventions made to help people manage risk, uncertainty and the losses from events whose impacts are channeled primarily through the labor market. The objectives of the white paper are: to scrutinize the relevance and effects of prevailing risk-sharing policies in low- and middle-income countries; take account of how global drivers of disruption shape and diversify how people work; in light of this diversity, propose alternative risk-sharing policies, or ways to augment and improve current policies to be more relevant and responsive to peoples’ needs; and map a reasonable transition path from the current to an alternative policy approach that substantially extends protection to a greater portion of working people and their families. This white paper is a contribution to the broader, global discussion of the changing nature of work and how policy can shape its implications for the wellbeing of people. We use the term risk-sharing policies broadly in reference to the set of institutions, regulations and interventions that societies put in place to help households manage shocks to their livelihoods. These policies include formal rules and structures that regulate market interactions (worker protections and other labor market institutions) that help people pool risks (social assistance and social insurance), to save and insure affordably and effectively (mandatory and incentivized individual savings and other financial instruments) and to recover from losses in the wake of livelihood shocks (“active” reemployment measures). Effective risk-sharing policies are foundational to building equity, resilience and opportunity, the strategic objectives of the World Bank’s Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice. Given failures of factor markets and the market for risk in particular the rationale for policy intervention to augment the options that people have to manage shocks to their livelihoods is well-understood and accepted. By helping to prevent vulnerable people from falling into poverty -and people in the poorest households from falling deeper into poverty- effective risk-sharing interventions dramatically reduce poverty. Households and communities with access to effective risk-sharing instruments can better maintain and continue to invest in these vital assets, first and foremost, their human capital, and in doing so can reduce the likelihood that poverty and vulnerability will be transmitted from one generation to the next. Risk-sharing policies foster enterprise and development by ensuring that people can take appropriate risks required to grasp opportunities and secure their stake in a growing economy.