Conditional Cash Transfers

Health, Education, Gender, and Technology

ABSTRACTIn the last ten years conditional cash transfers have proliferated as a tool to fight poverty, addressing most of the Millennium Development Goals. Mobile money, cross-sector collaboration, and cultural adaptation can help to make them more viable and effective, mainly in Africa and Asia.

Conditional Cash Transfers Xurxo Martínez

Table of Contents

SUMMARY 2

BACKGROUND AND GEOGRAPHY 3

WHAT IT IS 3WHEN DID IT START 4WHAT KIND OF POPULATION IS IT FOCUSED ON 5POSTER CHILDREN: MÉXICO AND BRAZIL 5GEOGRAPHY OF THE CCT 5

GOALS OF THE PROGRAM 6

HEALTH 7EDUCATION 7GENDER 7IDENTIFICATION 7

MAIN ISSUES 8

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TARGETED 8DELIVERING THE CASH 8MONITORING AND ENGAGING 9

ROAD TO THE FUTURE: TECHNOLOGY AND LOCALIZATION 9

CHOOSING THE FOCUS CAN BUILD ENGAGEMENT 9TECHNOLOGY TO UNIFY AND SIMPLIFY IDENTIFICATION 10DELIVERING THE CASH: MAGNETIC CARDS AND MOBILE MONEY 11DEBIT AND PRE-PAID CARDS 11MOBILE MONEY 11ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ENGAGEMENT 12GLOBAL POLICY ON POVERTY ALLEVIATION 12THE VALUE OF CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION 12

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

REFERENCES 15

TABLES 16

COM 597 Emerging Markets in Digital Media [MCDM – UW] Fall 2010


Summary

Conditional cash transfers (CCT) programs have become one of the main strategies to alleviate poverty, promoted by both governments and global institutions such as the World Bank. They focus on reinforcing school assistance and health checkups for pregnant women and children. The goal is to help the younger generation to escape from poverty traps. These programs seem to fit perfectly as a tool to address the Millennium Development Goals: they can address goals regarding poverty, education, empowerment of women, children mortality, maternal health, or prevention of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, while promoting a global partnership for development (UN, 2010).

Technology is becoming a key element in the two countries that set the standard for these kinds of initiatives: Brazil and Mexico. In addition, a combination of technology and cross-sector partnerships can help to spread CCTs in Asia and Africa.

Their goals are mainly transformational, focused on social assistance and human capital formation. They combine political and financial schemes.

In this paper we will first explain how CCTs work and their origins. Then we will discuss how the scheme has evolved during the years and different areas of the world. There will be a special focus in Latin America, where the countries mentioned above serve as role models for their neighbors.

Today more than forty CCTs are spread all over the world; many have been running for more than five years. We will use those examples to review their main goals, and the problems they face.

After that analysis, we will try to draw the path to a better future for these formulas. It will be the time to talk about how technology can solve problems or make the process more efficient. We will analyze what kind of changes could be put in place in order to better adapt the scheme to the social and economical reality of Africa and Asia, where these kind of programs are less successful. The lower number of initiatives can indicate two problems: lack of a successful program that serves as a model for neighboring countries, or that the scheme needs more customization in order to work in a society that may not have much to do with Latin America.

Information about the different programs mentioned in this paper can be found in a table included after the references.



Background And Geography

What It IsConditional cash transfers (CCT) have been presented during the last decade as a magic bullet for poverty alleviation, after their success in Latin American countries (Son, H. H., 2008, p.1).

Basically, CCT consist of a social contract where one part—usually a government— makes the promise to deliver an amount of money to an individual or group of individuals—i.e. a family—when a condition is met. The condition is a fact or behavior that the government considers valuable for younger generations to escape the traps of poverty.

There are both transactional and transformational ways to use CCT. The first case would be money given to the beneficiaries when a huge famine or a natural disaster happens, or when the government identifies that the price of basic goods is growing disproportionately. But most of the CCT programs have a transformational nature.

The condition, or bargain, focuses on social services that are supposed to induce major changes in human capital investment.

CCT programs focus on nutrition, health checkups, pregnancy monitoring, and assistance to school. On the education side, the programs usually ask for enrollment and attendance on 80-85% of school days (Fiszbein, A., et al, p. 1).

The programs cannot operate where the educational or health systems are weak. This means that poor countries with a small public sector may not be able to develop a program like those without external help.

Some critics say that those programs tell the poor ones how to rule their family and even use their money. There are even studies that show how in Malawi, the results obtained with a CCT program were very similar to the ones tied to an unconditional cash transfers (Baird, S., et al, 2010).

The whole system that needs to be put in place to check if the condition has been met by the beneficiaries can be both complicated and expensive. In each country and culture, the government or any other institution that promotes these tools should evaluate which form—conditioned or unconditioned—makes more sense for the population and the problems targeted.

When Did It StartThe first examples of CCT can be found around 1981, with the Subsidio Solidario—Spanish for Solidary Subsidy—in Chile. Another early example was the Learnfare, a series of education-based programs run in a few states in the US—more notably Wisconsin and New York. The results obtained in Wisconsin showed that 25% of the students classified as dropouts before the program started, decided ultimately to enroll in school (Dee, T, 2009, as cited by Education Week).

But the CCT has two clear poster children: Bolsa Família in Brazil—launched in 2003 but with roots in programs that go back to 1996—and Oportunidades/Progresa in México,created in 1997. Both programs have helped the two most populous and


http://goo.gl/gXp0v


powerful countries in Latin America to leverage the health and education of their poorest families. The hope is that these changes prove to be really transformational and will help the new generation to escape poverty.

Those programs have achieved a certain success—at least improving school attendance and health numbers—and the World Bank has stated in a report that “CCTs have improved the lives of poor people. Transfers generally have been well targeted to poor households, have raised consumption levels, and have reduced poverty.” (Fiszbein, A., et al, p. 2) That is the reason behind their popularity among the Latin American and Caribbean governments. In the period 2000-2006, at least twenty countries started their own programs, asseen inthe data in the table at the end of the paper. Based on these successes the World Band tried to spread the Mexican and Brazilian formula along Africa and Asia, where India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh had already started similar programs.It is still soon to say that those programs have actually brought a better future for the younger generations, but surely the raw numbers are positive and the poor populations of Mexico or Brazil seem to believe the programs are working.

What Kind Of Population Is It Focused On Not every CCT program has the same goals, reach, and focus. But we can say that, on average, they are created to help poor families with young children in school, pregnant women or—mostly in Africa—orphans and children with HIV or other major diseases.

One of their characteristics is that they are really focused in the families more than on the individuals. The condition forces the family to make decisions that are supposed to be good in the long term: take the kids to school, attend the periodical medical consultations, instead of focusing in the short term—i.e. having the kids helping in the field, or at home.

Poster Children: México And BrazilAs we stated before, the most relevant and influential CCT programs are the ones implemented in Mexico—Oportunidades, Spanish for Opportunities—and Brazil—Bolsa Família, Portuguese for Family Grant. Both of them cover more than 20 million people in each country and represent the main example of their social policies.

Oportunidades was the first major scheme, the one that most new projects have used as a mirror. This is in part because of the huge amount of data collected since 1997 analyzing the results and the fact that the Mexican government decided to make the information public (Fiszbein, A., et al, p. 6). That generated a big number of reports and papers on the initiative. In the last four years, up to 50 delegations from governments, international institutions, or social development organizations have visited the country to see how the program works (F. Irala, Director of Social Communication at the Oportunidades program, personal communication, November 20, 2010).

The other main success of CCT programs is Bolsa Família, a Brazilian program that unifies previous initiatives in just one social program. They were the first ones to use magnetic cards as a way to deliver the money to the beneficiary. Before, the recipient had to go to the bank—some times miles away from their homes—in order to redeem the cash. As Brazil is a Federal Republic, creating a single census has been one of the main challenges. Until recently there were several local databases and a national one. When the local representatives sent new information to the national one there were



many inconsistencies. Some families got denied the inclusion in the program or got payments delayed because of that issues (C. Riccio de Carvalho, General Coordinator of Bolsa Família for the Brazilian state of Acre, personal communication, November 29, 2010).

Geography Of The CCTThe following map shows the countries where CCT programs have been put in practice from 1981 to 2011 (the Macedonian CCT program will start in January 2011). The darker the color of the country shows the bigger number of initiatives that have been put in place, including those that have been discontinued or became part of another bigger program.

It is even possible to see examples of these programs in some of the most developed countries, as the United Kingdom or the Opportunity NY program in New York City, modeled after the Mexican one.

The map has been created with the software Many Eyes. An online version can be found at http://goo.gl/B7zb3. The data comes from the general CCT spreadsheet that can be found at the end of this paper or—in an unabridged version—at http://goo.gl/ExLYv.


http://goo.gl/ExLYv

http://goo.gl/B7zb3


Goals Of The Program

The main objective of CCT programs is to fight against poverty and create opportunities for new generations. Opportunities to escape the development traps their parents faced and that prevented them to get to the lower middle class. A better health and education are usually the first objectives all CCT programs try to achieve, but others issues such as the status of women or identification also surface. Let’s review each of them.

HealthUnder the umbrella of health, mainly with a focus on prevention, we can talk about periodic checkups for young children—especially under five years of age—and pregnant women, vaccinations, and treatments for children with HIV and other diseases that make them vulnerable. In many of these countries there are examples of poor pre and post-natal nutrition, which CCT programs try to prevent.

Related to health, some programs—i.e. Costa Rican Superémonos, Spanish for Lets Improve Ourselves—focus on enforcing nutrition. In this case the families can only use the money to acquire first necessity goods, but no products such as alcohol or tobacco.

EducationAlmost all the CCT programs have conditions related to education, with many of them focusing just on this goal. The children in the household must enroll school and attend a percentage of classes in order for the condition to be met. The families usually get more money when the kid starts secondary education, as it grows the risk of the parents forcing them to leave school and start working.

Gender One interesting outcome—many times not directly enunciated as a goal—of CCT programs is empowering the situation of women on their societies.

First, in most of the initiatives, the person who receives the money is the mother or the women who takes care of the child; their status within the household grows, as they have decision over resource allocation. That will also give them power in their communities. Formally, the reason for putting women on charge of the money is because they care more about the health of their daughters and sons, and to avoid the risk of males using the grants to buy tobacco and alcohol (Lomelí, E., 2008, p. 489).

Also, some of the education programs give more money to the families if the child who attends to school is a girl, reinforcing her chances of avoiding teenage marriages and even pregnancies. That is the specific goal of two of the CCT programs: the ones in Malawi, and the Indian State of Haryana. In the latter, the girls only receive all the money when they turn 18, being a condition that they are not married at that point.

Finally this point also relates to health, as girls under 15 are five times more likely to die during the pregnancy and their children are also more likely to born with low weight or die during their first year than those of older mothers (Gulemetova-Swan, M., 2009, p. 2).

Sociocultural biases against educating girls also play a big role. This means that other complementary programs should be put into place in order to achieve this goal.



IdentificationAs we have already seen, the whole process of identifying and targeting the families that will receive the money on condition is quite expensive at the first stages of the program. One of the main reasons is that part of the rural population lacks of any kind of standard ID. This is a broader problem that affects the whole relationship between those individuals and their government. Some of the CCT programs—i.e. Peru and Chile— look to also address this issue, including the condition that the members of the household must be in possession of that kind of identification.

Main Issues

In order to start a CCT program, the promoter—usually a government—should make sure that it is possible to identify the target population, and create a complete database; that it makes sense to tie a condition to the disposal of cash in order to achieve the goal; that it will be able to monitor the operations and evaluate the success of the program; and that there is enough political support and good governance in relation to the initiative.

One example of the importance of political commitment is Nicaragua and the program Red de Protección Social—Spanish for Social Protection Net—. The program significantly increased school enrollment, and reduced by 5% the need of medical treatments in the communities affected. The international community signaled that as a success. But the program was not understood internally, where politicians were pressed to share economic resources with other initiatives, letting the program die (Charity, M, 2009).

Governments should also support these programs through complementary policies, including them in a global strategy to fight poverty.

But if we let aside the politic side of CCT, and focus on operational and financial issues, the four big problems all CCT face are the following: Identification of the beneficiaries, accessibility in poor and rural areas, delivering the cash, and engaging the recipients in something else besides meeting a condition to get more money.

Identification Of The Individuals And Groups TargetedOnce the government—or the private promoter of a CCT—makes the decision about what profile of individual or family should receive and how much when they meet a certain condition, the problem is how to identify those individuals and families in an inexpensive, safe, and effective way.

As it was said before, Mexico is the country that has provided more data about the whole CCT process. So they are an illustrative example. During the first year of implementation of their program—1997—, the cost of targeting represented 65% of the total cost, followed by monitoring at 8%, and actual delivery of transfers also at 8%. By 2000, when the main identification and targeting work was already done, the transfers accounted for the 41% of the cost, monitoring was a 24%, and targeting just 11% (Son, H. H., 2008, p. 5).

We have also explained how the other main example of CCT programs, Brazil, is still finishing a new database that will provide accurate information about the beneficiaries. We should remember that Brazil is way ahead of most of poor countries in terms of administration infrastructure.



Delivering The CashOne of the points where we find more disparity is how to get the money to the population. There is a whole range of options: from Bolivia, where the army gives the money to the parents during the End of the Course party, to countries like Brazil, Colombia, or Peru, where families get some kind of intelligent debit card that is refilled each time the family proves the condition is accomplished.

Some of the cards—i.e. Dominican Republic—only work at certain shops and for a closed list of basic products.

In most Asian and African countries, the preferred method is to give the family some kind of money order, cash, or to transfer the money to an account at a public bank.

Monitoring And EngagingAnother big problem is how to make sure that the beneficiaries have fulfilled their part of the agreement. The administrative costs of checking each of the actions the families needs to meet are big, mainly in countries as Ecuador where the CCT covers 40% of the population (Fiszbein, A., p. 5).

Monitoring and evaluation issues force countries to come up with quite advanced technical systems (Fiszbein, A., p. 7).

Expenses in monitoring could be lower if the CCT promoters were able to make beneficiaries part of that process, engaging them in pursuing the goal, instead of having to police their actions.

Road To The Future: Technology And Localization

Over the years, both Latin America and Caribbean countries have found—based in the experiences of Mexico and Brazil—a model that brings good results, mainly in the rural areas. In Asian countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Philippines, they try to adjust some of the best practices to their countries, while African countries are the most reluctant when approaching CCT. But the social, economic, and cultural realities of Nigeria or Indonesia are quite far away for those in Chile or Honduras. Not only are Latin American countries wealthier on average, but they also have stronger institutional capacities to implement the program and a more developed banking system.

Now we will review the latest trends trying to overcome the previously defined issues for CCTs, and elaborate on other advances that address similar problems and the benefits of cross-sector collaboration. The focus will be in how technology can save money and efforts both to governments and the beneficiaries of these programs. But we will also talk about the importance of targeting the population group that, with the appropriate support, would be more likely to escape the poverty traps.

Choosing The Focus Can Build EngagementStarting with that last point, we have stated that the average CCT program tries to focus on the family household. The mother—usually—receives the cash when the condition is



met, and both the extra money and the feeling that they are doing something good for their children will help them to give the young ones the option to escape from poverty.

But not all examples work like that. In the gender-based programs of India, Bangladesh, or Malawi, the girls are the recipients of the money. In the case of the Indian province of Haryana they get the accumulated cash once they become 18 years old, and only if they are not married.

One of the most interesting CCT programs outside Latin America is PNPM-Generasi, which started in Indonesia in 2007, financed by the World Bank. The novelty here is that the recipient of the money is not a child or a family, but the whole community.

Representatives from the government go to the village and explain that they should identify problems and seek solutions to improve twelve health and education indicators. Once they define their main problems, also need to state what should they do to meet the condition. They can spend freely the money they will receive, but part of it should also help to improve the problems addressed by the condition (World Bank, 2008, p.6).

This way of making the recipients of the grant part of the decision-making process resembles the Bank of Madura initiative exposed by C.K.Prahalad in his book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid (Prahalad, C. K., 2005, p. 120-122). Basically that Indian bank went to rural areas and identified a group of women. Then, that group decided who in the village should receive a micro-loan, prioritizing those projects that were better for the whole community or solved a higher necessity.

While defining the problem and the tools to address it, the group or the community, becomes more aware of the necessity of a change. That way their behavior on health and education issues will not only be driven by the promise of money. Even further, they also need to apply part of the funding to get their goal.

Technology To Unify And Simplify IdentificationThe problems Latin American countries experienced with identification and tracking are likely to be bigger in rural areas of Africa and Asia. The lack of administrative presence in remote villages—especially in Africa—or any other institution—i.e. the Catholic Church—that can create and maintain a reliable listing of the villagers, makes the early stages of a CCT much harder.

Previously we have talked about the problems Brazil has faced in order to create a single and centralized census for their social programs. Starting in 2011, a new version of the national census for social programs will be online, and local representatives will feed it (C. Riccio de Carvalho). Putting aside the local databases, and making it easier for the local managers of the program to modify the data directly, will make it safer and updated. And that is a census that includes more than 12 million households (The Economist, 2010). Once again, not all poor countries have the administrative power, money resources, and political will of the Brazilian government.

This is why the example of the MoTeCH initiative in Ghana is so important. This partnership between the non-profit Access to Health, the Ghana Health System, and the Grameen Foundation, founded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, unifies information from the different health systems in the country—from nurses to mental health care—in order to create a single identification record that will follow each individual through their lives (Grameen Foundation).



Health is also one of the main goals of almost all the CCT programs. And health workers may well be the only administration representatives that will visit each one of the villages of the poor countries. If so, it makes sense for the governments to create that kind of records, since the pregnancy and use of that data is not only for health purposes, but also for the purpose of identification.

Delivering The Cash: Magnetic Cards And Mobile MoneyOne problem that is especially relevant in African and Asian countries is how to deliver the money to the recipients. The trend in Latin America and the Caribbean seems to be focused on different kind of magnetic cards: From the prepaid cash cards that are used in countries like Jamaica to the more sophisticated intelligent debit card that was used in the PANES program in Uruguay.

Other systems, such as meeting an administration member in order to get the money, deposits in federal banks, or money orders, seem too expensive and unsafe both for the promoter and the beneficiaries of the CCT.

Debit And Pre-Paid CardsThe Brazilian method—a magnetic card tied to an account at a federal bank—has proved to be very cost-effective, and is now about to be implemented in Mexico (F. Irala), where two different kinds of cards will be used. In urban areas the tool will be an intelligent debit card, in which the government add money that users can withdraw through their banks. In rural areas they will use pre-paid cards. The main difference is that they only can withdraw the money—or buy a series of products—in a special shop, where there is a point of sell terminal. For security reasons, most of the terminals in these shops have a fingerprint reader. Because, other than savings in paperwork or personal, the main advantage of cards is making sure the families receive the money.

Mobile MoneyWhat happens in rural areas when even a bank office or a shop with Internet connection can be far away of the village? What happens if an earthquake hits the country and the government needs to put money in the hands of the poor populations?

Here is where mobile money—which is gaining popularity in Africa thanks to the success of the Kenyan company M-PESA—seems to show a clear path to follow for CCT programs. Is a safe way to transfer money and is easy to get an electronic receipt. It brings also lower fees and premiums for money transfer, making it more cost-effective.

The first example of use of mobile money to deliver cash to a group of poor people is a set of unconditional cash transfers called Kerio Valley Cash Transfer Pilot (KVCTP) in Kenya. It was a partnership between the Irish charity Concern Worldwide and the Catholic Diocese of Eldoret’s. KVCTP was put in place in 2008, as that community had lost part of their livestock and homes during the wave of violence that followed the presidential elections in Kenya (Brewin, M., 2008), using M-PESA to deliver the money. Now Concern plans to do the same in Niger partnering with the mobile money platform ZAP.

And following the idea of MoTeCH, where a central and unified data system can be used for a number of purposes, we can envision how from the moment an official representative decides the beneficiaries has meet the condition, the system will be able to know what kind of grant should be given, and would even send the funds to the pertinent mobile money account.



With both magnetic cards and mobile money the transparency of the method—combining a universal ID and the disbursement of money through electronic means—would diminish the presence of corruption and save money in paperwork.

Another option in order to deliver the money could be microfinance institutions, as they are also present in the field and operating as small-scale banks. It would even make sense to put another condition on the use of the money. For example, that a percentage of the grant amount should remain in the microfinance bank, investing part of the money in a local business. That way the microfinance entity would get rewarded for their role in the CCT scheme, the recipient of the grant would have a chance to make some extra money, and the local economy would be strengthened. Right now the Nigerian CCT—Care of the Poor—is using microfinance institutions as payment offices.

When deciding how to deliver the money, the promoters of the CCT should take a look at the following criteria: the objectives of the program—emergency relief vs. yearly payments—, the availability of the delivery options in a given context, the costs of implementation and regular operation of each method, the amount of flexibility the payment may require, and the risk of fraud and corruption (Barca, V., et al, 2010, p. 10).

Enforcement Through EngagementThe last technical issue the CCT programs face is how to control the fulfillment of the conditions and enforce their observance. In order to avoid the creation of an administrative force just to make this control, we can go back to the example of MoTeCH and think about a system where the information collected by teachers, doctors and nurses would be sent to the central database. Then the recipients of the grants would get a text message informing if they are ok with the condition or not, if they need to comply with some other requisite in order to get the money, when the transfer will take place, etc.

If the beneficiaries are aware of their percentage or degree of completion in order to get the money, they will be more likely to make the effort in order to meet the condition.

Stepping away from the technology for one moment, it is worth taking a look at the strategy the CCT Indonesian program PNPM-Generasi is using. Making the community part of the process of defining both the specific goals and the conditions will likely bring engagement among the villagers as an output, and that engagement will lower the need for enforcement schemes. Obviously, we should also note that making a community the beneficiary of the CCT also lowers the administrative costs of collecting information. We can even think about selecting one respected member of each community in order to send the information to the central hub periodically.

Global Policy On Poverty AlleviationBut one of the main problems CCT programs are facing all over the world is that they are not isolated magic potions that can solve all the problems they try to address. It is necessary to include them into a general policy in order to really break the transmission of poverty between generations.

If we agree that CCT create new opportunities, other initiatives should make sure that the beneficiaries could really make use of those new options. There is no point in



enforcing assistance to schools if the educational system in itself is deficient or cannot provide tools for the students to have more job options.

The Value Of Cross-Sector CollaborationMost of the CCT examples are either financed entirely by governments alone or in collaboration with the World Bank. There are also privately funded programs, but those are usually small schemes focused just on small regions. That would be the case of Opportunity NY, which depends of the Rockefeller Foundation, AIG, Robin Hood Foundation, and the Michael Bloomberg Foundation.

But there is a whole series of small players who work to define the programs, localize solutions for each culture and society, and solve complex problems with technology.

Governments, international organizations, research groups—such as the MIT-based J-PAL Poverty Action Lab, or Oxford Policy Management—, and even foundations are already taking part in the CCT scheme. But in order to make these initiatives work in countries where the administrative—and even banking—structure is small, it might be necessary to partner. The partnership can take place with global software industries—Google, Microsoft— and local telecom industries—Safaricom, MTN—, organizations such as GTZ or DFID, foundations such as Grameen or Bill and Melinda Gates, and initiatives such as MoTeCH. All of them have been working to solve similar problems in poor countries during the last years.

In addition, working closely with NGOs specializing in certain areas—as Pathfinder is with reproductive health—governments would be able to learn the nuances of the problem. These NGOs can help to define the condition and the final goal of a CCT that tried to address just that issue.

Partnering with foundations and private institutions can be a shortcut for logistic and technical issues that may prevent CCT initiatives to be viable or successful. And here we meet again the need for a strong political commitment. If governments see those partnerships as a way of loosening control over the program or their leadership, they might choose not to roll out CCT programs, or to do it in a limited way.

We talk about partnering and not just about buying or using one technology, because initiatives such as M-PESA, the mobile money brand owned by Safaricom, are far more than just a technology the government can buy. In order to be successful in a tough environment, Safaricom solved many other problems, such as security of the transactions, or ubiquity of their representatives. These issues affect also CCT schemes, and can be more important than the technology itself.

So, for poor governments these partnerships are a way to acquire infrastructure, know-how, or access to technologies that would make possible for them to rollout something as complex as a CCT program.

For NGOs and foundations it is a way to comply with their goals, and with the added challenge of doing so in extremely hard conditions. Something similar happens with research centers, which through that work will be able to analyze first hand data and learn more about what faces their next clients.

And for technology-based companies—outside the money they could receive as payment—the benefit is double: on the one hand they are extending they need for their



products and services, as those become widely available. On the other hand, the second benefit is the popularization of their brand.

Conclusions And RecommendationsAs conditional cash transfers programs proliferate in Latin America and other areas of the world, the first wave of studies show promising numbers. They indicate CCTs improve health and education statistics for young children.

It is still too soon to demonstrate that these indicators substantially help young members of a community in poor environments to escape poverty, or if the same results could be obtained through unconditional cash transfers. But it certainly seems to be a scheme that matches political goals, improves basic conditions, and provides extra money to those poor families that show a bigger commitment to change their actual situation.

A kind of indirect but very valuable effect of CCTs is to strength the status of women in their families and communities. The women-specific CCTs should continue until other indicators show that the situation of women and men is absolutely equal.

Regarding the systems put in place to identify the recipients of the grants and give them the money, promoters of this kind of initiative should explore the opportunities and savings that both technology and partnership bring. Even if that means to give part of the responsibility and control to others: from telecommunication companies to microfinance institutions, health control programs, or rural shops.

In countries with small administrations and large rural populations, it will be harder for the government to run that kind of program on their own.

The combination of a further use of technology during the process, the unification of information, and a deep understanding of the social and cultural uses of the population the plan addresses, will be basic for its success.

More than 30 countries around the world are testing CCTs. It is very important to share the accumulated knowledge that these experiences bring, both among themselves and with other countries that might be thinking about similar initiatives. But the main relationship should take place among neighbor countries, as they share culture and needs. It will always be easier for an East African country to adapt a scheme from Kenya than one from Mexico.

The key to the future success for CCT seems to lie on the following principles: sharing of information, better organization of data, ability to adapt ideas from other programs and non-CCT initiatives that address related issues, and the implication of the beneficiaries in the definition of the goals and conditions. Technology will help the main players to find shortcuts and broaden options.



REFERENCES

Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. Retrieved from http://www.povertyactionlab.org/

Baird, S., Mcintosh, C., & Ozler, B. (2010). Cash or condition?: Evidence from a randomized cash transfer program. Washington, D.C: World

Bank.

Barca, V., Mcintosh, Hurrell, A. MacAusian, I., Visram, A., Willis, J. (2010). Paying Attention to Detail: How to transfer cash in cash transfers.

Oxford Policy Management. Retrieved from http://www.opml.co.uk/document.rm?id=1518

Brewin, M. (2008). Evaluation of Concern Kenya’s Kerio Valley Cash Transfer Pilot. Concern Worldwide. Retrieved from

http://www.concern.net/resources/kenya-mobile-phone-cash-transfers-report

Charity, M. (2009). Impact Is Not Enough: Image and CCT Sustainability in Nicaragua. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth

Dee, T. (2009). Conditional cash penalties in education: Evidence from the Learnfare experiment. Cambridge, Mass.

Fiszbein, A., Schady, N. R., & Ferreira, F. H. G. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty. Washington D.C: World

Bank.

Grameen Foundation. Mobile Technology for Community Health (MoTeCH). Retrieved from

http://www.grameenfoundation.applab.org/section/ghana-health-worker-project

Gulemetova-Swan, M. (January 01, 2009). Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs on adolescent decisions about

marriage and fertility: The case of Oportunidades. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: the Humanities and Social Sciences, 70,

6, 2155.

Lomelí, E. V. (January 01, 2008). Conditional cash transfers as social policy in Latin America: An assessment of their contributions and

limitations. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 475-499.

Oxford Policy Management. Social Protection. Retrieved from

http://www.opml.co.uk/policy_areas/poverty_and_social_protection/index.html

Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Wharton School Pub.

Son, H. H. (2008). Conditional cash transfer programs: An effective tool for poverty alleviation?. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

The Economist (July 29th 2010) How to get children out of Jobs and into school. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

UN (2010). United Nations Millennium Development Goals, retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

World Bank. (2008). Conditional cash transfers in Indonesia: Program Keluarga Harapan and PNPM-Generasi : baseline survey report. Jakarta:

World Bank.


http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

http://www.opml.co.uk/policy_areas/poverty_and_social_protection/index.html

http://www.grameenfoundation.applab.org/section/ghana-health-worker-project

http://www.opml.co.uk/document.rm?id=1518

http://www.povertyactionlab.org/

http://www.concern.net/resources/kenya-mobile-phone-cash-transfers-report


TABLES

COMPARISON OF CCT PROGRAMS AROUND THE WORLD (1981-2011)The table shows the different programs initiated since 1981, including those that have already been discontinued or merged with others. The order of the continents is related to the number of initiatives, and inside each continent—America, Asia, Africa, and Europe—the order is alphabetical.

An unabridged version of this table can be reached at http://goo.gl/ExLYvComplete documentation for the table at http://goo.gl/VS9fF


http://goo.gl/VS9fF

http://goo.gl/ExLYv

Conditional Cash Transfers

Documents

cct goals

kind of programs

cash monitoring

different programs

poverty alleviation

main goals

poverty traps

traps of poverty