EXPLORING THE IMPACTS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION ON SOCIAL COHESION IN THE SAHEL September 2025 SUMMARY Vulnerability, poverty, competition over natural resources and lack of economic opportunities have distended social bonds and fueled conflict in the Sahel . Climate change exacerbates existing social, political, and economic tensions and conflicts. Policies and programs seeking to address poverty and other drivers of vulnerability, such as social protection, have the potential to support social cohesion. Untangling the relationship between social protection and social cohesion is essential to maximize this positive impact and prevent unintended detrimental dynamics. Social protection can have several effects on social cohesion, but few studies have evaluated such effects systematically in the Sahel. In addition, little evidence exists on the impacts of different components or design features on multiple dimensions of social cohesion, and the importance of institutional and social contexts in contributing to these impacts. Globally, evidence points to the potentially significant role social protection can play in improving social cohesion.1 For instance, safety nets can help build institutional trust and strengthen the citizen- state contract. They can also strengthen trust within and across groups; as well as promote greater cooperation within groups. Finally, they can contribute to greater unity and peace. However, to be able to inform program design and enhance its positive impacts, more knowledge is needed on the pathways through which program design and implementation features, as well as contextual characteristics, operate on the different dimensions of social cohesion (potentially in circular fashion). In addition, the evidence base in the Sahel is marked by significant gaps, with most evidence focusing on social cohesion within- community or bonding relations. Further analysis should help fill gaps in evidence around cohesion or bridging relations (such as between host populations and displaced populations) and vertical cohesion or linking relations (between citizens and the state). Better understanding the relationship between social protection and social cohesion is essential for policy and program design and implementation, as well as to support advocacy. UNICEF, the World Bank (WB) and the World Food Program (WFP), building on a strong partnership forged to support social protection systems in the Sahel, are jointly implementing a research project focusing on identifying the multiple linkages between social protection and social cohesion. The research project combines qualitative and quantitative methods to quantify the causal effects of social protection interventions on different dimensions of social cohesion while shedding light on the channels through which these impacts manifest. The quantitative study will analyze social cohesion-related indicators from impact evaluations of selected safety nets in the Sahel, while the qualitative field study will analyze both contextual features and program design and implementation at community level to gain more detailed understanding of their impacts on social cohesion. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Motivation ..................................................................................................................................3 1.1. Why social cohesion and social protection are important in the Sahel ............................................... 3 1.2. The joint UNICEF/WB/WFP research project .................................................................................... 4 2. Conceptual framework: linkages between social protection and social cohesion ..............................5 2.1. What are the dimensions of social cohesion? .................................................................................. 5 2.2. Pathways through which social protection programs may affect social cohesion ............................... 6 2.3. Existing evidence of the impact of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel .......................... 9 3. Objectives and key dimensions of the research project .................................................................. 11 3.1. Key objectives and research questions .......................................................................................... 11 3.2 Proposed research methods .......................................................................................................... 11 4. Conceptual framework for the research project ............................................................................. 14 4.1. Key program design and implementation features .......................................................................... 15 (1) Program design: objectives, components, activities, and benefits ...................................... 15 (2) Outreach and communications about the program during implementation ......................... 16 (3) Intake, assessment of needs and eligibility decisions ......................................................... 17 (4) Delivery of benefits and services ....................................................................................... 17 (5) Management and grievances ............................................................................................ 18 4.2. Key contextual features that can shape the impacts of social protection on social cohesion ............ 18 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 21 _______________________________________________________________________________ The SASPP Technical Paper series collection comprises documents released expediently to ensure prompt availability within our community of practice, aiming to foster engagement and disseminate knowledge swiftly. Please be mindful that, for this purpose, the material has not undergone extensive proofreading, and minor typos may be present. Your understanding of this expedited release is appreciated. 1. Motivation 1.1. Why social cohesion and social protection are important in the Sahel Vulnerability, fragility, conflict, and shocks intertwine in the Sahel. Most countries in the Sahel are distinguishable by high levels of poverty, exacerbated by a range of risks, including drought, floods, conflict, and displacement. Many are disproportionately affected by climate change, which deepens underlying vulnerabilities and worsens the inextricable linkages between poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. As a threat multiplier, climate change exacerbates existing social, political, and economic tensions and conflicts. Vulnerability, poverty, competition over natural resources, challenges in governance and access to public services, and lack of economic opportunities have distended social bonds and fueled conflict in the region, including terrorism, violent extremism, and inter-community and socio-economic conflicts. Lack of trust in government (and among communities), marginalization and deep-rooted grievances are widespread.2 Social cohesion has emerged as an important topic in development policy and is particularly relevant in the context of the Sahel.3 Societies that are more cohesive may be more resilient to shocks, especially during natural disasters or public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Social cohesion can also improve local community development by enhancing the community’s ability to agree on public goods to be created. Finally, social cohesion has been found to foster societal peace. Social protection can play a role in improving social cohesion. There is growing commitment from governments to sustainably tackle poverty and vulnerability by developing their social protection systems. Social protection programs have improved a broad range of outcomes for beneficiaries such as consumption, food security, nutrition, productivity, resilience to climate change, as well as access to health and education services. They also yield positive effects on local economies, benefiting local communities beyond beneficiaries. 4 In addition to these well-documented impacts, the evidence on social protection points to its potentially important role in improving social cohesion. 5 For instance, safety nets can help build institutional trust and strengthen the citizen-state contract. They can also strengthen trust within communities and across groups; as well as promote greater cooperation within groups. Finally, they can contribute to greater unity and peace. 2 Dieng (2021). 3 Sharma and Menke (2024); Burchi et al. (2022); Abrams et al. (2020); and Townshend et al. (2015). 4 Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program (2024). 5 Carter et al. (2019); Burchi et al. (2022); and UNDP (2016), cited in Carter et al. (2019). 1.2. The joint UNICEF/WB/WFP research project In the context of their ongoing support for social protection in the Sahel, the World Bank, WFP, and UNICEF have designed a joint research project focusing on identifying the linkages between social protection and social cohesion. This research aims to fill evidence gaps on the impacts of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel and provide recommendations on how to tailor social protection program design and delivery to maximize positive potential and avoid any negative impacts. Findings will be useful to inform the design of social protection programs (e.g., eligibility criteria, transfer values, or complementary services) and the choice of implementation modalities (e.g., targeting mechanisms, communications, or feedback mechanisms). This is particularly relevant for policy makers and social protection practitioners in the Sahel, where social cohesion in many countries is being eroded through the combined impacts of conflict, climate change and displacement. Evidence of positive impacts can also bolster investment cases for social protection. The project includes three complementary elements (see below for more details): A systematic review of existing evidence of the size and direction of impacts of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel; qualitative analysis in selected countries to identify design and implementation features that can promote positive impacts of social protection programs on social cohesion; and the analysis of data from past and ongoing impact evaluations of safety net programs in the Sahel to quantify impacts on different dimensions of social cohesion. 2. Conceptual framework: linkages between social protection and social cohesion 2.1. What are the dimensions of social cohesion? While there are multiple definitions, social cohesion is generally used to refer to relations among members of society and the state. Adopting the definition by Leininger et al (2021), this research project considers social cohesion as “both the vertical and the horizontal relations among members of society and the state as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, an inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good”, defined in Figure 1. Figure 1. Three attributes of social cohesion. Trust refers to the ability to Inclusive identity refers to when Cooperation for the common trust other people, both individuals can identify with various good is defined as the within and outside one’s group identities (e.g., gender, religion, cooperation between people or social circles, as well as village, ethnicity) but also feel a mutual groups for interests that go trust towards the state belonging to larger, broader identities beyond those of the individual or including its local and such as a national identity. Different the group. national institutions. identity groups tolerate and recognize each other, while the state protects the rights of the various identity groups Source: Based on Leininger et al (2021). These attributes can be observed in relation to three different dimensions of social cohesion, captured by the “bonding, bridging, linking” framework (Figure 2). 6 Bonding refers to relations connecting individuals within a given group. Bridging refers to relations between individuals across distinct groups. And linking refers to the connection between citizens and the state. While bonding and bridging constitute what is often referred to as horizontal social cohesion (between individuals and communities), linking refers to vertical social cohesion. 6 Chatterjee et al. (2023). Figure 2. Three dimensions of social cohesion For each of these dimensions, aspects of trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good can be identified.7 For instance, trust refers to trusting others within one’s group for the bonding dimension, trusting individuals from other groups for the bridging dimension, and trusting public institutions for the linking dimension of social cohesion. Similarly, for the bonding and bridging dimensions, inclusive identity refers to the ability of individuals to have different identities and yet live together in a peaceful way, within or between groups. For the linking dimension, inclusive identity translates into the feeling of belonging to a broader unity, the nation, despite having different group identities. Finally, cooperation for the common good translates into joint efforts for goods that benefit others by people within a community (bonding dimension) or across communities (bridging dimension), or into cooperation with the state for the linking dimension (for instance through community participation in targeting processes in the context of social safety nets). 2.2. Pathways through which social protection programs may affect social cohesion Overall, evidence on social protection programs reveals impact on a large spectrum of outcomes for beneficiaries and communities. Robust evidence from the Sahel demonstrates that social protection programs can boost consumption, productivity, and the resilience of beneficiary households, as well as promote human capital investments in the health and education of future generations and strengthen local economies (see Figure 3). In addition to these dimensions, social protection programs can also have impacts on different dimensions of social cohesion8. Programs can strengthen the sense of belonging to a community, or to a broader set of communities, or even to a nation. Programs can bring individuals together around activities that benefit their communities or a broader group of communities. They can also involve local communities in the management of programs. Increases in income (and social status) associated with productive and economic inclusion impacts of social protection programs may result in higher engagement in society. 7 Chatterjee et al. (2023), Loewe et al. (2020), Loewe and Schuring (2021), and Leininger et al. (2021). 8 Building on UNDP (2016) cited in Carter et al. (2019). DFID (2011). In fragile states, programs have the potential in supporting conflict prevention and peace processes required for creating a stable environment for growth and investment. Depending on their design and implementation, programs can also strengthen trust within a group, across groups, or with the authorities, by building institutional trust and strengthening the citizen-state contract. Figure 3: Impacts of SP in the Sahel. Source: Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program (2024) In theory, social protection programs can lead to both positive and negative impacts on different dimensions of social cohesion. Social protection programs can potentially have unintended negative impacts on social cohesion, which can emerge in relation to those who have not been included as beneficiaries. Impacts will often depend on the context and on how the program is designed, communicated, and implemented. Figure 4 illustrates some of the ways in which social protection may affect social cohesion either positively or negatively across different dimensions. Figure 4: Illustrative pathways for social protection to contribute to social cohesion. INCLUSIVE COMMON GOOD TRUST IDENTITY COOPERATION A productive inclusion A safety net program can A safety net program with a program that organizes improve the perceived productive or economic BONDING: beneficiaries into savings or inclusion of beneficiaries, inclusion component that Horizontal training groups can result in especially marginalized facilitates collaborative/ relations within strong bonds and trust among beneficiaries, as a member of collective efforts can lead to groups participants. a group. identifying and pursuing group-level objectives and If stigmatized, beneficiaries creating assets or other can become isolated within benefits for the group (i.e., their communities. beyond the individual level). A public works program that Social protection programs, Programs with messaging on ensures distinct groups (e.g., by selecting a set of good practices (e.g., on refugees and host beneficiaries may lead to a human capital or climate BRIDGING: communities) work alongside feeling of exclusion in those change) can lead to non- Horizontal and interact in a cooperative who were not included beneficiaries also adopting relations setting can build trust. (particularly if identification good practices, thus between groups criteria or processes were not improving outcomes across A safety net program which well communicated). the community. excludes non-beneficiaries from information sessions A safety net program can Public works can provide an organized at community-level reduce inequality and boost a opportunity for groups to might create tensions sense of belonging among the work together for a common between groups. poorest in society. output that benefits all. A shock-response program A program perceived as Cooperation between the that repeatedly responds to provided by the local citizens and state may be droughts can increase trust in government can strengthen fostered through targeting LINKING: government. the sense of unity/belonging processes if government and Vertical relations at the local level. community work together to between citizens A safety net whose selection identify beneficiaries. and the state criteria or processes are not A program communicated as well understood may a national-level effort, with A program with a beneficiary negatively affect trust in the local agencies integrated into identification process that state. the process, can strengthen asks questions that seem citizens’ sense of inclusion ‘intrusive’ or ‘sensitive’ may and engagement from local result in communities being and national institutions. reluctant to engage. Source: Building on Sharma and Menke (2024). Note: Text in green refers to positive effects, while text in red refers to negative effects. 2.3. Existing evidence of the impact of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel To identify the research gaps and conceptual framework to guide further research, the first step of the research project consisted in a review of the existing literature.9 This review mapped the causality between social protection and social cohesion in the Sahel. Using existing conceptual frameworks, the findings from this review were organized around the three components of social cohesion – trust, inclusive identity, and cooperation for common goods, as well as the three dimension of bonding (within groups), bridging (between groups) and linking (between citizens and the state) dimensions (see Fig. 2). Overall, the review found that social protection can and has had several positive impacts on social cohesion. However, negative impacts and dynamics can also occur. Positive impacts require concerted design and implementation features, as well as considering pre-existing conditions of social cohesion. Overall, while some evidence is available on bonding relations, data is scarcer on the bridging and linking dimensions of social cohesion (Table 1). Table 1: Key findings on the impact of social safety net on social cohesion in the Sahel Evidence on bonding (horizontal relationships within groups) • In Mauritania, the national safety program improved trust and cooperation for the common good but do not have impacts on other attributes, such as inclusive identity.10 • In Niger and Burkina Faso, evidence indicates that economic inclusion interventions that are layered on top of social safety nets can increase trust, inclusive identity, and cooperation for the common good among program beneficiaries.11 • In Mali and Chad, quantitative and qualitative evidence indicates that beneficiaries of social safety nets increase resource-sharing with non-beneficiaries, which may be a sign of cooperation for the common good and inclusive identity.12 • In Burkina Faso and Cameroon, qualitative evidence suggests that resource-sharing is higher and animosity lower between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries within refugee groups. 13 • In Burkina Faso, social safety nets demonstrated their ability to improve beneficiaries’ subjective social standing.14 9 Sharma and Manke (2024). 10 Mauritania Tekavoul Program Impact Evaluation Draft Results (unpublished, 2023). 11 Bossuroy et al, 2022 and Bossuroy et al, 2024. 12 Midline Report of the RCT evaluation of the safety net program in Mali (unpublished, 2018), Della Guardia et al, 2022, and Schnitzer et al, 2022. 13 Della Guardia et al, 2024. 14 Akresh et al. 2016 • In Chad and Niger, social conflicts and tensions among community members (which can stem from a breakdown of horizontal trust, and/or a reduction in inclusive identity or trust) may increase or decrease after the introduction of safety nets, with pre-existing contextual factors potentially playing a significant role. 15 Evidence on bridging (horizontal relationships between groups) • The impacts of social protection on fostering ties between displaced groups and host communities have not been studied in the Sahel. • However, evidence from other fragile contexts suggests some limited success in the relations between refugee and host communities. 16 Evidence on linking (vertical relations between citizens and the state) • The perception of the fairness of selection processes among those not selected varies significantly across programs and contexts – the share of those who perceived the selection process as fair ranged from 40 percent in Senegal up to 75 percent in Burkina Faso and Niger.17 • In Burkina Faso and Cameroon, qualitative evidence suggests that the linking dimension of social cohesion varies based on the actors to whom people attribute the program: Vertical trust and inclusive identity (of being a citizen, receiving benefits from the state) are strengthened when the government’s role is perceived as being strong (Cameroon) but do not increase when the government’s role is less clear to beneficiaries (Burkina Faso).18 Source: Sharman and Manke (2024). The evidence on how social protection impacts social cohesion in the Sahel has gaps which need to be filled to gain a holistic understanding of effects. First, large-scale evaluations of social protection programs in the region have measured these effects only for program participants. The experiences and perspectives of community members who were not selected for the program are often missing from such evaluations. Additionally, most evidence pertains to within-group social cohesion, and gaps remain in the evidence base on how social protection impacts social cohesion between groups (in particular, between displaced persons and host communities) and between individuals and the state. 15 Della Guardia et al, 2022 16 Zintl and Loewe. 2022. and Ferguson et al. 2022 17 Schnitzer et al. 2022 and Premand and Schnitzer, 2021. 18 Della Guardia et al, 2024. 3. Objectives and key dimensions of the research project 3.1. Key objectives and research questions This research aims to fill evidence gaps on the impacts of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel and provide recommendations on how to tailor social protection program design and delivery to maximize positive potential and avoid potential negative impacts. To do so, the research project proposes focusing on the following key questions: • Direction and size of impacts: What are the directions and size of impacts of social protection interventions in terms of different forms of social cohesion (within groups, across-groups, and citizen-state) and different attributes of social cohesion (cooperation, trust, inclusive identity)? • Design and delivery features: In what ways do program design and delivery features and practices affect social cohesion outcomes? Which features are likely to lead to stronger positive or negative impacts? • Perceptions of participants: What pathways are perceived by program participants and other stakeholders as playing a role in the impact of social protection programs on social cohesion? • Role of the state: Does it matter if a social protection program is perceived as being led and implemented by the government alone or with other actors intervening at funding or implementation stages? How important is the reliability and institutional durability of the programs? • Conditions under which effects materialize: Which contextual factors are likely to affect the impacts of social protection programs on social cohesion and in what way? 3.2 Proposed research methods The research project seeks to leverage the complementarity of three qualitative and quantitative research methods, and findings from these different elements will be combined into a comprehensive report: (1) A systematic review of existing evidence of the size and direction of impacts of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel. This literature review was concluded (Sharman and Menke. 2024) and served to shape the conceptual framework of the research project and informed the development of research questions for the qualitative analysis. (2) A qualitative analysis that involves primary and secondary data collection in selected countries to identify design and implementation features that can promote positive impacts of social protection programs on social cohesion, as well as the role played by contextual factors. (3) A quantitative analysis of data from past and ongoing impact evaluations of safety net programs in the Sahel, using larger samples to quantify impacts on different dimensions of social cohesion and fill some of the existing gaps in evidence. The qualitative analysis is underpinned with a field study that will seek to identify the impacts and interconnections of contextual and social protection program design and implementation features on social cohesion. It will include a documentary review of information on program features and contextual factors in relation to the study sites; key informant interviews with national and local authorities, community representatives, and program implementers; and focus group discussions and individual interviews with program beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The field research will be conducted in at least two sites in Chad and Mauritania to capture contextual differences in terms of regions, livelihoods, socio-cultural groupings, and conflict dynamics (Table 2). The research focuses on programs that have some degree of national ownership (to explore vertical dimensions) and a certain degree of maturity and longevity (on the assumption that social cohesion effects take time to manifest). Table 2: Overview of countries, programs, and research sites for qualitative component Country Programs Potential research sites Potential focus within research framework Chad Refugee and Host Regions of Kanem and Bahr El Program effects on social cohesion Community Support Gazal (West, Lake Chad), and between refugees and host communities. Program (PARCA) region of Quaddai (East) to capture different cultural contexts of communities that host refugees Mauritania National Safety Net Two localities: the Gorgol The locality in the south offers a point of Program (Tekavoul) region in the South which comparison with the quantitative analysis, and National Lean experiences high poverty and while refugee inclusion in the east offers a Season Response food insecurity and the Hodh point of comparison with the Chad study. Program (El Maouna) Charqui region in the East, where refugees are included in the safety net MASEF disability grant Nouakchott The urban setting adds different (supported through dimensions of analysis, potential focus on the UNICEF/WFP Joint the degree to which program support program) fosters a sense of wider social cohesion (horizontal linking dimensions within neighborhoods, shared national identity, and trust in the state among people with disabilities) The quantitative analysis will seek to expand the evidence that quantifies the causal effects of social protection on different dimensions of social cohesion in the Sahel. The analysis will focus on programs which have been the object of robust impact evaluations, which can provide a basis for the measurement of social cohesion impacts that can be attributed to specific programs. The process will start with the identification of potential options among an inventory of 26 social protection programs implemented in Sahelian countries in recent years, filtering programs based on the existence of robust impact evaluations, and the identification of variables in the existing evaluation datasets that can be used to estimate some dimensions of social cohesion. Once programs are identified, the research team will seek access to the datasets and analyze them to assess relevant impacts of adaptive social protection on social cohesion. The research project will produce a series of outputs, aimed at informing the design and delivery features of future social protection programs. Building on these three elements, the research project outputs will include (1) the review of evidence (already published), (2) case studies for the sites studied, (3) technical notes on quantitative evidence, as well as (4) an overall synthesis paper with recommendations on how to select design and delivery features to enhance the positive impact of social protection on social cohesion in the Sahel, and the types of adjustments needed for different contexts. 4. Conceptual framework for the research project Three broad findings from global and regional evidence reviews have guided our choice of conceptual framework for this joint research project.19 (1) Evidence points to the importance of program design and implementation features. These include, among others, program objectives, coverage, inclusion, targeting effectiveness, reliability, adequacy of benefits, funding source, communication, transparency, and effectiveness of grievance mechanisms. In addition, transformative impact on social cohesion depends on program scale. (2) Evidence shows that social protection programs’ impacts on social cohesion are context specific. Evidence on impacts points to the importance of enablers in the environment, including local institutional settings and the nature of the relationship among social groups. For example, socially cohesive contexts provide greater opportunity for government officials to perform and are less likely to lead to resentment against social protection programs. Overall, existing levels of trust, cooperation for the common good, and feelings of inclusive identity as well as the strength of bonding, linking, and bridging relations serve as the substratum upon which programs are delivered. (3) Evidence points to a circular relationship between social protection and social cohesion. Some program design and implementation features may modify – either positively or negatively – social cohesion outcomes. In turn, resulting changes in social cohesion will affect the ability of future programs to improve social cohesion outcomes as well as the design and implementation features of these programs. Based on the definition of social cohesion and the global and regional evidence of impacts, we adopt the conceptual framework presented in Figure 5 for the research project. The conceptual framework presents selected elements of context and programs that may have particular importance for social cohesion outcomes. The framework suggests that features of both the context and the programs may exert direct influence on social cohesion and may also interact in circular fashion to shape outcomes when programs are implemented. The first arrow reflects the fact that program features, including design elements and processes of implementation, may contribute – either positively or negatively – to different dimensions of social cohesion. Second, the mechanisms through which social protection affects social cohesion themselves interact with contextual factors, which influence the transmission of impacts. Finally, there is feedback between social cohesion and contextual factors, with changes in social cohesion shifting the context within which programs will operate. Indeed, levels of trust, cooperation for the common good and feelings of inclusive identity as well as the strength of bonding, linking, and bridging relations at local level will serve as the substratum upon which future social protection programs will be delivered. 19 See Adato (2000); Andrews and Kryeziu (2013); Attanasio et al. (2009); Attanasia et al. (2015 ); Babajanian et al., (2014); Beierl and Dodlova (2022); Burchi et al. (2022); Burchi and Roscioli (2022); Camacho (2014); FAO (2014); Lehmann and Masterson (2014); Köhler (2021); Loewe et al. (2020); Molyneux et al. (2016); Pavanello et al. (2016) ; ORIMA Research (2020); Roelen (2017); Roxin et al. (2020); Sumarto (2020); UNHCR (2019); Valli et al. (2019); and Zintl and Loewe (2022). Figure 5. Conceptual framework for the research project 4.1. Key program design and implementation features Multiple design and implementation features can shape the impact of social protection programs on social cohesion. As discussed earlier, these features can either build or erode relations of trust, inclusive identity, and cooperation in the three dimensions of social cohesion – bonding within groups, bridging across groups, and linking with the state. Features can contribute to different elements of social cohesion and may interact with each other to produce multiple effects. For this research project, we have grouped these features into five categories. This section provides a discussion of the design and implementation features specific to each category, reviewing some of the mechanisms through which they could have a positive or negative impact on different dimensions of social cohesion. (1) Program design: objectives, components, activities, and benefits What is it? A critical element of design for social protection programs is the choice of objectives, components, and activities. Design parameters also include amounts of transfers, frequency, duration, accompanying measures, criteria of exit, and the provision of additional services. These design features are informed by overall social protection policy and by the objectives of the program. They are anchored in an understanding of the conditions and needs of potential beneficiaries, as well as the constraints they face to reach the objective adopted by the program. Why it matters for social cohesion? Program design is critical for impact on social cohesion, independently of whether the program is intentionally focusing on this outcome. For example, to positively impact on social cohesion, benefits can be designed to ensure they equally accrue to distinct groups, strengthening bridging relations. Eligibility criteria can potentially affect all dimensions of social cohesion. Also, ensuring program activities are in line with local needs and priorities (and/or informed by local level participation) can enhance trust in local and national government. Benefits can also indirectly strengthen links, for instance when transfers or economic inclusion activities enhance resilience and the ability of households to activate local solidarity mechanisms. Finally, benefits can be designed to help strengthen relationships or collaboration within groups or across groups. This includes building or maintenance of community assets; the delivery of accompanying measures that encourage bonding or bridging relations, intra or inter-community trust or cooperative work; and cooperative work for the common good that involves beneficiaries and other members of the community. (2) Outreach and communications about the program during implementation What is it? Outreach and communications are central throughout program implementation, starting with the initial phase during which programs communicate on their objectives and design during the outreach phase, and continuing with communication and community engagement throughout implementation. Design and implementation features include for instance the communication plan, with a particular focus on communication at the community level, the actors involved in communicating and their ability to convey key messages to the communities, the various communication tools deployed and their adequacy to local literacy rates. Why it matters for social cohesion? The way outreach and communication activities are designed and implemented has strong potential to contribute to social cohesion, either positively or negatively. It is critical to build buy-in for the program and its features (its objectives, its design and parameters, and its implementation mechanisms) among the population groups which will benefit from the program, as well as those who might not benefit. This could include, for instance, an explanation for the rationale for including or not include refugees in a program, for selecting groups as recipients (e.g., women), or for focusing on specific types of activities. Such communication serves to build support and prevent potential backlash. When delivered consistently, communication may also contribute positively to maintaining and/or building trust amongst and between community members as well as between the community and government and/or implementing agencies. It may also help promote a sense of inclusive identity and willingness to collaborate for the common good, thus promoting both horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion in bonding, bridging, and linking relations. Failure to ensure that such processes are in place leaves open the possibility of an erosion of trust at all levels. (3) Intake, assessment of needs and eligibility decisions What is it? One of the first phase in the implementation of programs is the identification of its beneficiaries. This will typically include a series of steps – from the definition of the population that the program aims at supporting, to the definition of the criteria which will be used to identify them, and the adoption of the process of selection, including the potential role communities and local leaders play in the process. In many countries, a first step is the development of social registries which calls for both the identification of households to be included in the registry and the application of data collection to document their socio-economic conditions. A further step is the application of a series of criteria for programs to identify its beneficiaries – often combining geographic targeting, categorical criteria, the application of a measure of welfare (using a formula to proxy income, consumption, or vulnerability), as well as a community-based validation process. Why it matters for social cohesion? The identification of beneficiaries is of central relevance to issues of social cohesion, since the degree to which it is perceived to be transparent and fair is likely to have a direct impact on feelings of inclusion/exclusion, which in turn can enhance or erode social cohesion (inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good). A fair and transparent process can enhance feelings of inclusive identity and trust among beneficiaries, who feel that their specific needs are being considered, thus enhancing both bonding and linking relations. On the other hand, these processes might be divisive if not fully understood or accepted, or if seen to be discriminatory, leading to an erosion of trust and bridging relations between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries as well as an erosion of trust and linking relations with the state. Overall, these decisions can result in greater integration of beneficiaries into the community, improved status/social networks, or conflicts or tensions between groups, among others. (4) Delivery of benefits and services What is it? This refers to how all program activities are organized – outreach, registration, selection, creation of groups, organization of information sessions, organization of payment, and organization of public work, among others. It also encompasses the choice of the entity or actors responsible for the implementation and the supervision of the various activities – often a combination or central and local government, communities and their representatives, NGOs, financial intermediaries, firms, and CSOs. In addition to the design of activities, choice of actors, and delivery modalities, the actual delivery of benefits and services and the behaviors of the actors involved in that delivery are critical to the realization of programs’ impacts. Why it matters for social cohesion? Some modalities can encourage bonding or bridging relations, intra or inter-group trust or cooperative work. For instance, organizing beneficiaries by group for behavioral change communication can encourage bonding, while opening them to non-beneficiaries as well can promote greater bridging relations. Programs can do so deliberately, as one of their objectives, when program delivery features are designed directly to enhance social cohesion. They can also have positive or negative impacts on social cohesion without explicitly aiming to do so, as collateral impact beyond the intended ones. At times, communities themselves participate in the delivery (in the process of pre-identifying households to be registered in social registries, validation of key objectives by community leaders, validation of list of eligible households, and the mobilization of beneficiaries for sessions, among others). The perceived role and behavior of implementing actors can build elements of vertical trust and linking relations and in promoting a positive sense of inclusive identity and willingness to participate in collaborative activities. If implementation processes lack transparency, are perceived to deviate from what was foreseen, or fail to deliver the promised benefits, vertical dimensions of trust, inclusive identity and bridging relations could be undercut. (5) Management and grievances What is it? Throughout their implementation, programs manage the journey of beneficiaries, which can include decisions to re-assess or re-certify beneficiaries, to help them graduate from a program, or to access their benefits. Programs also put in place grievance redress mechanisms to address questions from beneficiaries or other households – from request for information, to feedback on activities, to grievances about any aspect of the program (inclusion or exclusion from the program, delays in implementation, report of abuse, harassment or exploitation by program actors, misappropriation of benefits, etc.). Why it matters for social cohesion? Strong and fair grievance redress mechanisms can play a significant role in reducing conflict and enhancing trust (they can sometimes even address tensions that go beyond program-related matters). Implementation processes that are perceived as unfair, discriminatory, or unjust could result in potential loss of trust, inclusive identity or willingness to collaborate for the common good. These may be mitigated by access by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries to mechanisms to air grievances and the timely delivery of appropriate responses to complaints. Such mechanisms can help bolster or repair bonding, bridging, and linking relations that may have been weakened due to perceived wrongs. Building on local community conflict resolution mechanisms, which are trusted by communities, might enhance their mitigation power (e.g., composition of grievance redress committee and how members selected). 4.2. Key contextual features that can shape the impacts of social protection on social cohesion As reflected in the conceptual framework, the contextual features of the community within which social protection programs are delivered have critical implications for the outcomes of social protection programs, including social cohesion. For this analysis, we have organized contextual factors into 6 categories. Table 3 highlights how each of these categories may have implications for social protection delivery and outcomes, for social cohesion, and for the way social protection impacts social cohesion. Table 3. Implications of local context and community characteristics for social protection and social cohesion Implications for Implications for Implications for the social protection social cohesion impacts of delivery and outcomes social protection on social cohesion Community Can influence Can foster cohesion Can affect program social beneficiary selection, between groups or acceptability and organization redistribution of benefits, cohesiveness in the implementation, and local functioning of grievance same group, but can enhancing or diminishing power redress mechanisms, also trigger divisions different dimensions of structures and overall programme among groups, social cohesion implementation exclusions of certain groups or subgroups, or even conflict Livelihood Contributes to poverty Can shape local Can contribute to social characteristics profiles/resilience solidarity and mutual cohesion if equal potentials, labor assistance mechanisms benefits accrue to mobility, and production within livelihood groups, different groups, joint systems, important for as well as forms of activities enhance program design exchange and cooperation and trust, (including economic cooperation or conflict and programs enhance inclusion measures) within or between groups resilience or solidarity mechanisms Poverty and Important for targeting Inequalities can Programs effectiveness vulnerability criteria and processes, undermine social in addressing poverty dimensions program coverage, and cohesion dimensions; and vulnerability can and dynamics program design exposure to shocks can enhance or undermine (including shock- disrupt the social fabric; trust in local and responsive features) wealth and power national government and differentials may result feelings of common in patron-client relations identity within communities Local social Can influence The strength and Programs that draw on solidarity and implementation and diversity of norms and and support these mutual outcomes (for instance, mechanisms can mechanisms can assistance redistribution practices enhance social contribute to long-lasting norms and will influence the impact cohesion, particularly social cohesion, mechanisms within groups particularly if they help to of a transfer within a expand solidarities household) between groups Gender norms Important to inform Gendered differences in The degree of gender and practices gender-sensitive design access to, use of, and responsiveness in (including accompanying control over resources program design and measures and economic and decision-making can implementation can inclusion measures) impinge on all contribute to social dimensions of social cohesion cohesion Conflict Can disrupt programme Common grievances can Conflict-sensitive dynamics and implementation and lead to stronger bonds program design and post-conflict outcomes, and within certain groups implementation is environment contribute to tensions (while also fueling important for programs within communities or conflict between to contribute to social conflicts around program groups). Inter and intra- cohesion and avoid benefits group conflict- additional fractions and management practices conflict are also important for social cohesion Bibliography Abrams, D., F. Lalot, J. Broadwood, K. Davies Hayon, and I. Platts-Dunn (2020) The social cohesion investment: Local areas that invested in social cohesion programmes are faring better in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. Adato, M. (2000) The impact of PROGRESA on community social relationships. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFT). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16015/files/mi00ad04.pdf Akresh, R., de Walque, D., & Kazianga, H. (2016). Evidence from a randomized evaluation of the household welfare impacts of conditional and unconditional cash transfers given to mothers or fathers (Development Research Group Human Development and Public Services Team Working Paper 7730). World Bank. Andrews, C., and A. Kryeziu (2013) Public works and the jobs agenda: Pathways for social cohesion? Background Paper for World Development Report 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank. Attanasio, O., L. Pellerano, and S.P. Reyes (2009) Building trust? Conditional cash transfer programmes and social capital. Fiscal Studies 30 (2): 139–177. Attanasio, O., S. Polania-Reyes, and L. Pellerano (2015) Building social capital: Conditional cash transfers and cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 118: 22–39. Babajanian, B., J. Hagen-Zanker, and R Holmes (2014) How do social protection and labour programmes contribute to social inclusion? Evidence from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal. Overseas Development Institute 2014. Beierl, S., and M. Dodlova (2022) Public works programmes and cooperation for the common good: Evidence from Malawi. European Journal of Development Research 2/2022. Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B. et al. Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature 605, 291–297 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8 Bossuroy, Thomas, Dean Karlan, Harounan Kazianga, William Pariente, Patrick Premand, Christopher Udry, Julia Vaillant, Kelsey Wright. (2024). Impact of the productive inclusion measures of the Burkin Naong Sa Ya program (2019-2020). (Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program Technical Working Paper.) World Bank. Burchi, F., and F. Roscioli (2022) Can integrated social protection programmes affect social cohesion? Mixed-methods evidence from Malawi. European Journal of Development Research 2/2022. Burchi, F., Loewe, M., Malerba, D., and Leininger, J. (2022) Disentangling the relationship between social protection and social cohesion: Introduction to the special issue. The European Journal of Development Research, Vol 34, pp 1195-1215 Disentangling the Relationship Between Social Protection and Social Cohesion: Introduction to the Special Issue | The European Journal of Development Research (springer.com) Camacho, L. 2014. The effects of conditional cash transfers on social engagement and trust in institutions: evidence from Peru’s Juntos Programme. DIE Discussion Paper 24/2014. German Development Institute/ Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Carter, B., K. Roelen, S. Enfield S. and W. Avis (2019) Social Protection Topic Guide. Revised Edition. K4D Emerging Issues Report 18. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies Chatterjee, S., M. Gassier, and N. Myint (2023) Leveraging Social Cohesion for Development Outcomes. World Bank Della Guardia, Anne; Lake, Milli; Schnitzer, Pascale (2022), Selective inclusion in cash transfer programs: Unintended consequences for social cohesion, World Development, Volume 157, 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22001127 Della Guardia, Anne; Lake, Milli; and Saidi, Mira (2024) Social Protection in Contexts of Violence, Fragility and Forced Displacement: the case of Burkina Faso and Cameroon. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper No. 2406. World Bank. DFID (2011) Cash Transfers – Evidence Paper. DFID Policy Division. Dieng A. (2021) The Sahel: Challenges and opportunities. International Review of the Red Cross. 2021;103(918):765-779. doi:10.1017/S1816383122000339 Evans, D.K., B. Holtemeyer, and K. Kosec (2019) Cash transfers increase trust in local government. World Development 114: 138–155. FAO (2014) The economic impacts of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. (October), 4. Ferguson et al. World Bank. Building Stability Between Host and Refugee Communities - Evidence from a TVET Program in Jordan and Lebanon. 2022. Kim, J., Sheely, R., Schmidt, C. (2020). Social Capital and Social Cohesion Measurement Toolkit for Community Driven Development Operations. Washington, DC: Mercy Corps and The World Bank Group. Köhler, G. (2021) Effects of social protection interventions on social inclusion, social cohesion, and nation building. In The handbook on social protection systems, ed. E. Schüring and M. Loewe, 636– 646. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lehmann, C., and D. Masterson (2014) Emergency economies: The impact of cash assistance in Lebanon. Beirut: International Rescue Committee, (August), 43. Leininger, J., F. Burchi, C. Fiedler, K. Mross, D. Nowack, A. von Schiller, C. Sommer, C. Strupat, and S. Ziaja (2021) Social cohesion: a new definition and a proposal for its measurement in Africa. DIE Discussion Paper 31/2021. Bonn: German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Lindert, Kathy, Tina George Karippacheril, Ines Rodriguez Caillava, and Kenichi Nishikawa Chavez, eds. 2020. Sourcebook on the Foundations of Social Protection Delivery Systems . Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1577-5. Loewe, M., and E. Schüring (2021) Introduction to the handbook of social protection systems. In Handbook on social protection systems, ed. E. Schüring and M. Loewe, 1–35. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Loewe, M., T. Zintl, J. Fritzenkötter, V. Gantner, R. Kaltenbach, and L. Pohl (2020) Community effects of cash-for-work programmes in Jordan: supporting social cohesion, more equitable gender roles and local economic development in contexts of flight and migration. DIE Studies 103, Bonn: German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Molyneux, M., W.N. Jones, and F. Samuels (2016) Can cash transfer programmes have ‘transformative’ effects? Journal of Development Studies 52 (8): 1087–1098. ORIMA Research & The Asia Foundation (2020) Timor-Leste COVID-19 Survey: Round 2 July 2020. Dili, Timor-Leste, and Canberra, Australia. Pavanello, S., C. Watson, W. Onyango-Ouma, and P. Bukuluki (2016) Effects of cash transfers on community interactions: Emerging evidence. Journal of Development Studies 52 (8): 1147. Premand, Patrick, Pascale Schnitzer. (2021). Efficiency, Legitimacy, and Impacts of Targeting Methods: Evidence from an Experiment in Niger, The World Bank Economic Review, Volume 35, Issue 4, November 2021, Pages 892–920, https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhaa019 Premand, P. and O. Barry (2022) Behavioral change promotion, cash transfers and early childhood development: Experimental evidence from a government program in a low-income setting. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9368. Roelen, K. (2017) Shame, poverty and social protection, IDS Working Paper 489, Brighton: IDS. Roxin, H., A. Kocks, R. Wedel, N. Herforth, and T. Wencker (2021) Effectiveness of German development cooperation in dealing with conflict driven migration crises, Executive Summary Bonn: German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval). SASPP (2024) Strong Impacts of Adaptive Social Protection in the Sahel’. Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/c132eb4f7f6d589a67d865b5cd3bc77a- 0010052024/original/EN-VER-Infographic-Final.pdf Schnitzer, Pascale, Anne Della Guardia, and Milli Lake. 2022. Targeting in Ultra Poor Settings: Evidence from six countries in rural Sahel. SASPP Policy Note Series. Note 4. Sharma, A. and Menke, J. (Sept 2024) How does social protection impact social cohesion in the Sahel? A review of existing evidence and gaps. SASPP Technial Paper Series/Special Edition Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program; UNICEF; World Bank, WFP. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/168f4d7e-53bb-4279-9af0- 839cb9f68152/content Sumarto, S. (2020) Welfare and conflict: Policy failure in the Indonesian cash transfer. Journal of Social Policy 1: 1–19. Townshend, I., O. Awosoga, J. Kulig, and H. Fan (2015) Social cohesion and resilience across communities that have experienced a disaster. Natural Hazards 76 (2): 913–938. UNDP. Leaving No One Behind: A Social Protection Primer for Practitioners. 2016.” Cited in Carter, B., Roelen, K., S. Enfield, and W. Avis (2019) Social Protection Topic Guide. Revised Edition. K4D Emerging Issues Report 18. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. UNHCR (2019) Effects of cash on social cohesion in Kalobyei settlement, Kenya: A do no harm assessment. Nairobi, Kenya. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Valli, E., A. Peterman, and M. Hidrobo (2019) Economic transfers and social cohesion in a refugee- hosting setting. Journal of Development Studies 55 (sup1): 128–146. Zintl, T., and M. Loewe (2022) More than the sum of its parts: Donor-sponsored Cash-for-Work Programmes and social cohesion in Jordanian communities hosting Syrian refugees. European Journal of Development Research 2/2022. © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e- mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. .