Sudhanshu Handa Gelson Tembo In search of the holy grail: can Luisa Natali unconditional cash transfers Gustavo Angeles Gean Spektor graduate households out of poverty in Zambia? September 2019 Impact Public Financial Management Evaluation Report 103 About 3ie The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) promotes evidence-informed equitable, inclusive and sustainable development. We support the generation and effective use of high-quality evidence to inform decision-making and improve the lives of people living in poverty in low- and middle-income countries. We provide guidance and support to produce, synthesise and quality-assure evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. 3ie impact evaluations 3ie-supported impact evaluations assess the difference a development intervention has made to social and economic outcomes. 3ie is committed to funding rigorous evaluations that include a theory-based design, use the most appropriate mix of methods to capture outcomes and are useful in complex development contexts. About this report 3ie accepted the final version of the report, In search of the holy grail: can unconditional cash transfers graduate households out of poverty in Zambia?, as partial fulfilment of requirements under grant DPW1.1042 awarded through Development Priorities Window 1. The content has been copy-edited and formatted for publication by 3ie. The 3ie technical quality assurance team for this report comprises Neeta Goel, Deeksha Ahuja, Sayak Khatua, Marie Gaarder, an anonymous external impact evaluation design expert reviewer and an anonymous external sector expert reviewer, with overall technical supervision by Marie Gaarder. The 3ie editorial production team for this report comprises Akarsh Gupta and Pallavi Duggal, with Beryl Leach providing overall editorial supervision. All of the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors and omissions are also the sole responsibility of the authors. All affiliations of the authors listed on the title page are those that were in effect at the time the report was accepted. Please direct any comments or queries to the corresponding author, Sudhanshu Handu, at [email protected]. Funding for this impact evaluation was provided by UK aid through the Department for International Development. A complete listing of all of 3ie’s donors is available on the 3ie website. Suggested citation: Handa, S, Tembo, G, Natali, L, Angeles, G and Spektor, G, 2019. In search of the holy grail: can unconditional cash transfers graduate households out of poverty in Zambia?, Impact Evaluation Report 103. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Available at: doi: https://doi.org/10.23846/DPW1IE103 Cover photo: Ivan Grifi / FAO © International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2019 In search of the holy grail: can unconditional cash transfers graduate households out of poverty in Zambia? Sudhanshu Handa (co-PI) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gelson Tembo (co-PI) Palm Associates and University of Zambia Luisa Natali UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Gustavo Angeles University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gean Spektor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Impact Evaluation Report 103 September 2019 Acknowledgements This research is jointly funded by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, UNICEF-Zambia, and UNICEF Office of Research through support from Sida. The evaluation was conducted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Palm Associates, Lusaka, Zambia. Luisa Natali is employed by UNICEF Office of Research. Thanks to Averi Chakrabarti and Valerie Lundeen for excellent research assistance, and to the 3ie referees for useful comments. Sudhanshu Handa and Gelson Tembo are the corresponding authors for this report. Manzunzu Zulu ([email protected]) is the focal point of the study for the Ministry of Community Development & Social Services, the implementing agency. i Summary The study assesses whether the large, positive impacts of the Zambian government’s Child Grant Programme (CGP) were sustained after households exited the programme. The CGP was an unconditional cash transfer that provided approximately US$12 to households with a child under age five in three rural districts. The study exploits the fact that the government reformed its grant programmes in 2015. Many households that had been in the CGP since 2011 were no longer eligible for the new programme and were effectively removed from the rolls. We compare these households to those in an experimental control group who were never enrolled in the CGP. The analysis is complicated by the fact that CGP households were gradually removed from the programme, so that some received benefits longer than others. Even accounting for this variation in programme exposure, we find that the consumption and food security of the original CGP households declined after the programme ended, and that there was no longer any difference between them and the original control group. These findings are supported by indicators of subjective well- being, which also drop for the treatment group and are equal to those in the original control group. There is some nuance to these results when looking at productive activity and assets. The level of these indicators stays the same or even increases in the original treatment group, but increases even more in the control group, again leading to convergence, but convergence that is driven by ‘catch-up’ rather than ‘fade-out’. The pattern of results regarding assets and productive activity suggests that the original treatment households are economically stronger, more resilient and perhaps more likely to withstand shocks to consumption, though we cannot unequivocally assert this from the results of this analysis. Households in this study are ultra-poor. They have a mean consumption of US$0.30 per person per day, making them some of the poorest households in the world. Infrastructure and environmental conditions are likewise quite harsh. The pattern of results we find – that large programme effects mostly fade out quickly – suggest that in this environment, and with households at the edge of survival, cash alone is unlikely to lead to wholesale graduation out of poverty. Grail An object or goal that is sought after for its great significance. –– Meriam- Webster Dictionary A thing which is eagerly pursued or sought after. –– Oxford English Dictionary ii Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ i Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii List of figures and tables ............................................................................................ iiv Abbreviations and acronyms…………………………………………………………………v 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6 2. Intervention, theory of change and research questions ......................................... 8 2.1 Intervention ............................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Theory of change ................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Research questions ............................................................................................. 10 3. Evaluation design, sampling and data ................................................................... 11 3.1 The original impact evaluation ............................................................................. 11 3.2 The current study ................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Identifying treatment status .................................................................................. 13 3.4 Empirical approach and statistical specification ................................................... 16 3.5 Ethics approvals .................................................................................................. 13 4. Findings ................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Other operational concerns .................................................................................. 17 4.2 Programme knowledge ........................................................................................ 18 4.3 Perceived conditions ............................................................................................ 18 4.4 Payments ............................................................................................................. 19 4.5 Attrition and balance ............................................................................................ 20 4.6 Descriptive analysis ............................................................................................. 22 4.7 Impact analysis .................................................................................................... 26 4.8 Power and multiple inference testing ................................................................... 41 5. Challenges and lessons .......................................................................................... 41 6. Discussion, policy implications and conclusion .................................................