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
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
Human(itarian) Capital?: Lessons on Better Connecting Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2018-11)Governments in low and middle-income countries are increasingly investing in social protection, and also address many of their own people’s ‘humanitarian’ needs themselves. For their international partners, who may have an important role in filling gaps when household needs exceed national capacity to meet them, support for the strengthening of national systems, combined with a shift from short-run to more durable approaches, is becoming a unifying framework for assistance. Some aspects of social protection and humanitarian assistance therefore seem to be on a converging trajectory. ‘Human(itarian) Capital?’ discusses findings from twelve country case studies exploring the linkages between humanitarian assistance, in its various interpretations, and national social protection systems. Specifically, the paper distills lessons on how humanitarian assistance and social protection systems might better coexist, the possible challenges and trade-offs emerging from practical experiences, and how to facilitate, inform, and accelerate future concerted action. -
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
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. -
Publication
Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020)Universal basic income (UBI) is emerging as one of the most hotly debated issues in development and social protection policy. But what are the features of UBI? What is it meant to achieve? How do we know, and what don’t we know, about its performance? What does it take to implement it in practice? Drawing from global evidence, literature, and survey data, this volume provides a framework to elucidate issues and trade-offs in UBI with a view to help inform choices around its appropriateness and feasibility in different contexts. Specifically, the book examines how UBI differs from or complements other social assistance programs in terms of objectives, coverage, incidence, adequacy, incentives, effects on poverty and inequality, financing, political economy, and implementation. It also reviews past and current country experiences, surveys the full range of existing policy proposals, provides original results from micro–tax benefit simulations, and sets out a range of considerations around the analytics and practice of UBI. -
Publication
Unbundled: A Framework for Connecting Safety Nets and Humanitarian Assistance in Refugee Settings
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2019-09)The debate on if and how to connect humanitarian assistance for refugees with national social protection systems can elicit polarizing views. Hence, it is not unusual to observe country-level approaches getting somewhat ‘stuck’ – especially where refugees represent a sizable share of the population: from a donor perspective, the question is how can governments be persuaded to be more inclusive; from a government standpoint, it faces disproportionate political and economic risks from “being left with the bill”; and from the international humanitarian agencies viewpoint, there might be quandaries on how to reconcile commitments to neutrality and independence with those to respecting the primary responsibility of governments. These stylized views are legitimate, but their combined effect may generate competing narratives and little negotiating space among the multiple actors involved. The net result might be the endurance of a sub-optimal dual systems operating in parallel – one for refugees, one for citizens. The framework laid out in this paper attempts to facilitate the identification of workable pathways for progress among actors. Instead of framing the humanitarian-social protection links as an ‘either-or’ choice, the framework includes a more granular analysis of how collaborations may emerge around select programmatic ‘functions’, as well as the ‘degrees’ of possible connection between national and international support within a given function. -
Publication
Should I Stay or Should I Go: Do Cash Transfers Affect Migration?
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2018-07)The paper reviews the evidence on a "hot" and yet underexplored question -- that is, whether and how social assistance programs (especially cash transfers) affect domestic and international migration. Out an initial sample of 269 papers, 10 relevant empirical studies examine the question. The programs are classified into three clusters: (i) social assistance that implicitly deters migration centering on place-based programs, (ii) social assistance that implicitly facilitates migration by relaxing liquidity constraints and reducing transaction costs, and (iii) social assistance that is explicitly conditioned on spatial mobility. The paper finds that impacts on migration generally align with the implicit or explicit goals of interventions. Under cluster (i), the likelihood of moving declined between 0.22 and 11 percentage points; among schemes in clusters (ii) and (iii), the probability to move soared between 0.32-25 and 20-55 percentage points, respectively. The analysis also finds spillover effects within households and communities. While social assistance seems not to determine migration decisions per se, it nonetheless enters the broader calculous of mobility decision making. As such, social protection can be an important part of public policy packages to manage mobility. More research is needed to improve understanding of the role of social protection in structural transformation -- a process underpinned by domestic mobility and the performance of which may ultimately affect international migration.