Publication: The Other Side of the Coin: The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?
Loading...
Files in English
1,710 downloads
Published
2016-06-08
ISSN
Date
2016-06-22
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
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.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Gentilini, Ugo. 2016. The Other Side of the Coin: The Comparative Evidence of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations?. World Bank Studies;. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24593 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Digital Object Identifier
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Natural Disasters(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-02)This paper makes the case for why safety nets are an important tool for managing the risk of natural hazards. The use of safety nets is advocated both ex ante, to prevent and mitigate the impact of natural disaster and ex post, to cope with the impacts of natural shocks. Firstly, the paper explores the implications of contextual factors to be taken into account in the design of an effective safety net system to respond to the needs generated by natural disasters. Learning from the responses to a number of recent natural disasters, a typology of the different types of natural hazards which require different approaches to reduce their risk is introduced. Secondly, the paper considers some 'guidelines' for improving the design and implementation of safety nets either to prevent and/or to recover from natural disasters. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations for more effective safety net and suggestions for addressing key issues are outlined.Publication Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-06)Upon request of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Principals at their meeting on December 11, 2015, the World Bank agreed to coordinate a process of reviewing key issues and options for significantly scaling up the use of multipurpose cash transfers (MPCTs; including digital cash and vouchers) in the humanitarian space. This note lays out the main findings and options emerging from the process. The main text is complemented by a set of seven appendixes, detailing the process and feedback received, as well as presenting a thorough review of the evidence and evidence gaps in the comparative effectiveness of cash and in-kind programs across humanitarian objectives. This note synthesizes main issues and findings from the process, including defining overarching issues (section 2), setting out the overall context in which a wider use of cash should be considered (section 3), and identifying the specific areas to help unleash a wider use of cash transfers when and where appropriate (section 4).Publication The Revival of the "Cash versus Food" Debate(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 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 Options for Strengthening Social Safety Nets in Lao PDR : A Policy Note(Washington, DC, 2010-07)The Government of Lao PDR (GoL) announced that its 7th national socio-economic development plan, covering 2010 through 2015, will focus on achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and exiting least developed country status by 2020. To achieve these goals, one of the priority areas in the 7th National Socio-Economic Development Plan (NSEDP) is to reduce vulnerability to shocks by providing and improving social safety nets (SSN). As part of this ongoing work a SSN Workshop was organized in Vientiane in March 2010, with the following five objectives: 1) improve joint understanding of the current social protection system (focusing on SSNs); 2) learn from government about their development priorities for 2011-2015; 3) learn from government and donors about their experiences with social protection and poverty reduction programs; 4) discuss various SSN options and identify which options are appropriate in the current context and given current priorities; 5) identify potential ways that donors and development partners can work together to strengthen SSNs in Lao PDR. This brief note summarizes the findings from the SSN workshop, and potential next steps.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Peru Public Finance Review: Mobilizing Resources for Service Delivery and Growth(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-11-26)Peru, once a high-growth economy achieving significant reductions in poverty, now faces stalling progress, citizen distrust and political instability. After robust growth averaging over 6 percent in the early 2000s and poverty reduction from 59 percent in 2004 to 24 percent in 2014, progress came to a halt around 2013 with weakening institutions and a pause in the commodity boom. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on Peru, which recorded the highest mortality rate globally. The pandemic intensified political instability, fueling public frustration in Peru, and delaying essential policy reforms. Today, over 90 percent of Peruvians distrust their government, a 25-percentage-point (pp) increase from 2011. Peru’s potential growth is around 2.5 percent, requiring 64 years to reach high-income country status. Nevertheless, Peru holds vast opportunities for faster development if it can seize key strategic opportunities and address long-overdue reforms, as emphasized in the Country Economic Memorandum (World Bank, 2025a).Publication The World Bank Group Annual Report 2025(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-10-09)The World Bank Group Annual Report 2025 presents on World Bank Group activities in fiscal 2025. The Annual Report is prepared by the Executive Directors of ICSID, IFC, MIGA, and the World Bank (IBRD/IDA) in accordance with the by-laws of the institutions. The President of the World Bank Group and Chairman of the Board of Executive Directors submit the Annual Report, together with the accompanying administrative budgets and audited financial statements, to the Board of Governors.Publication Reboot Development: The Economics of a Livable Planet(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-09-01)“Reboot Development: The Economics of a Livable Planet” explores how the foundational natural endowments of land, air, and water—long taken for granted—are under growing threat, putting at risk the very progress they helped create. For generations, natural resources have powered development, supporting health, food, energy, and economic opportunity. Today, strains on these resources are intensifying. This report argues that failing to maintain a livable planet is not merely a distant environmental concern, but a present economic threat. Drawing on new data, the report shows that over 90 percent of the world is exposed to poor air quality, degraded land, or water stress. Loss of forests cuts rainfall, dries soils, and worsens droughts, costing billions of dollars. The nitrogen paradox emerges—fertilizers boost yields but overuse in some regions harms crops and ecosystems. Meanwhile, air and water pollution silently damage health, productivity, and cognition, sapping human potential. The report warns that these hidden costs are too large to ignore. Yet the message is not one of constraint but of possibility. Nature, when wisely stewarded, can drive growth, create jobs, and build resilience. The report shows that more efficient resource use—like better nitrogen management and forest restoration—yields benefits that far exceed the costs. It also urges a shift to cleaner sectors and producing “better things,” noting that these provide new sources of growth, creating more jobs per dollar invested. The findings are clear: Investing in nature is not only good for the planet, it is smart development.Publication World Development Report 2025: Standards for Development(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-12-11)Standards make everyday life run smoothly. You rarely notice them: the credit card that works in any corner of the world, the Wi-Fi signal that connects a remote village to the cloud, or the vaccine vial that fits syringes from Dakar to Delhi. When standards work, they build trust. They free people and firms to focus on creating, trading, and innovating, confident that the systems around them will hold. When standards fail, the effects are immediate and draining. Payments are declined, signals drop, vaccines spoil—and instead of being productive, people spend their energy just meeting their basic needs. Standards, in short, are the hidden infrastructure of modern economies—and they have never been more important. Developing countries today must contend with a thicket of increasingly stringent international standards, a product of globalization and rapid technological change. Using standards—and shaping them—is now a prerequisite for export growth, technology diffusion, and the efficient delivery of public services. Yet standards are too often overlooked by policy makers, especially in developing countries. World Development Report 2025: Standards for Development provides the most comprehensive assessment of the global landscape of standards today and how they can be used to accelerate economic development. It offers a practical framework for countries at all stages of development. Countries at the earliest stage should adapt international standards to suit local conditions when needed, whereas at more advanced stages, they should aim to align domestic markets with international standards. Meanwhile, all countries should author international standards in priority areas.Publication Digital Africa(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023-03-13)All African countries need better and more jobs for their growing populations. "Digital Africa: Technological Transformation for Jobs" shows that broader use of productivity-enhancing, digital technologies by enterprises and households is imperative to generate such jobs, including for lower-skilled people. At the same time, it can support not only countries’ short-term objective of postpandemic economic recovery but also their vision of economic transformation with more inclusive growth. These outcomes are not automatic, however. Mobile internet availability has increased throughout the continent in recent years, but Africa’s uptake gap is the highest in the world. Areas with at least 3G mobile internet service now cover 84 percent of Africa’s population, but only 22 percent uses such services. And the average African business lags in the use of smartphones and computers as well as more sophisticated digital technologies that catalyze further productivity gains. Two issues explain the usage gap: affordability of these new technologies and willingness to use them. For the 40 percent of Africans below the extreme poverty line, mobile data plans alone would cost one-third of their incomes—in addition to the price of access devices, apps, and electricity. Data plans for small- and medium-size businesses are also more expensive than in other regions. Moreover, shortcomings in the quality of internet services—and in the supply of attractive, skills-appropriate apps that promote entrepreneurship and raise earnings—dampen people’s willingness to use them. For those countries already using these technologies, the development payoffs are significant. New empirical studies for this report add to the rapidly growing evidence that mobile internet availability directly raises enterprise productivity, increases jobs, and reduces poverty throughout Africa. To realize these and other benefits more widely, Africa’s countries must implement complementary and mutually reinforcing policies to strengthen both consumers’ ability to pay and willingness to use digital technologies. These interventions must prioritize productive use to generate large numbers of inclusive jobs in a region poised to benefit from a massive, youthful workforce—one projected to become the world’s largest by the end of this century.