Qualitative Research and Analyses of the Economic Impacts of Cash Transfer Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Qualitative research and analyses of the economic impacts of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa Ethiopia country case study report Qualitative research and analyses of the economic impacts of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa Ethiopia country case study report FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2014 i The From Protection to Production (PtoP) programme is, jointly with UNICEF, exploring the linkages and strengthening coordination between social protection, agriculture and rural development. PtoP is funded principally by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the European Union. The programme is also part of a larger effort, the Transfer Project, together with UNICEF, Save the Children and the University of North Carolina, to support the implementation of impact evaluations of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. For more information, please visit PtoP website: www.fao.org/economic/ptop The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO 2014 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected]. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]. ii Preface This report forms one of a set of six country case studies that explore the impact of cash transfer programmes on household economic decision-making and the local economy in sub-Saharan Africa. The research is being carried out under the auspices of the From Protection to Production (PtoP) project, a four-year collaboration between UNICEF, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The PtoP is part of a larger effort, the Transfer Project – jointly implemented by UNICEF, Save the Children and the University of North Carolina – that supports the implementation of cash transfer evaluations in sub-Saharan Africa. The research is intended as a complement to other studies of cash transfer programmes that focus more on social indicators such as health and education outcomes. It therefore covers themes such as the extent to which cash transfers can help households to manage risk, overcome credit constraints, make productive investments and improve their access to markets, as well as their effect in stimulating local economies. This report reviews the Tigray Social Cash Transfer Pilot programme. Case studies of cash transfer programmes in Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Malawi have been completed and are available at www.fao.org/economic/ptop/publications/reports. Acknowledgments We appreciate the interest of Tigray Bureau of Labour and Social Affairs, in sharing the experiences of the Tigray Social Cash Transfer Pilot programme as part of this multi-country research. We also warmly acknowledge their contributions to technical discussions and to facilitating the fieldwork. We thank the staff of the Woreda-level Bureau of Labour and Social Affairs of Hintalo Wajirat and Abi Adi woredas for their willingness to share their insights, as well as the time spent by the Community Care Coalitions in the study locations to ensure a successful field experience. A sincere thank you to all the individuals in the communities visited who generously shared their time and views with us. The Ethiopia case study has been carried out by Oxford Policy Management (OPM), a development consultancy in the UK, in partnership with Mekelle University based in Mekelle, Tigray region, Ethiopia. Sara Pavanello (independent consultant) is the lead researcher. Mekelle University’s team of national researchers in Ethiopia comprised Hailay Hadgu, Hayalu Miruts, Tsegazeab Kidane Mariam and Sehin Kinfu. The overall project manager for the six-country study is Simon Brook of OPM. Pamela Pozarny of the FAO provided technical oversight and contributed to the field research and preliminary analysis. iii Contents Preface.............................................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ iii Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... vi Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction to the study ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1 From Protection to Production' (PtoP) and the Ethiopia case study ................................... 3 1.2 The research hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 3 2. The Tigray Social Cash Transfer Pilot programme ........................................................... 7 2.1 Background to the programme ........................................................................................... 7 2.2 Programme management and implementation structure .................................................... 8 3 Research method ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Selection of study communities ........................................................................................ 13 3.2 Fieldwork implementation ................................................................................................ 15 4 Regional, woreda and community profiles ........................................................................ 19 4.1 Tigray profile .................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Hintalo Wajirat woreda .................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Research community profiles ........................................................................................... 22 4.4 Research community profiles ........................................................................................... 29 5 Research findings................................................................................................................. 33 5.1 Household economy ......................................................................................................... 33 5.2 Household well-being ....................................................................................................... 35 5.3 Reducing negative coping strategies ................................................................................ 40 5.4 Household economic activities and savings ..................................................................... 43 5.5 Gender relations and decision-making within the household ........................................... 46 6 Local economy ..................................................................................................................... 48 6.1 Economic exchanges and market dynamics ..................................................................... 48 6.2 Limited effects on labour patterns .................................................................................... 51 7 Social networks...................................................................................................................... 52 7.1 Risk-sharing relationships in the study areas .................................................................... 52 7.2 Community-based sources of social support .................................................................... 53 7.3 The effects of the transfer on risk-sharing relationships .................................................. 56 8 Operational issues ................................................................................................................ 60 iv 8.1 Targeting .................................................................................................................................................................. 60