Economic and productive impacts of
social protection in Africa
Benjamin Davis
Food and Agriculture Organization,
the From ...
Why do livelihoods matter for
social protection?
• Most beneficiaries in Sub Saharan Africa are rural,
engaged in agricult...
Reaching social goals requires
sustainable livelihoods
• Work in context of multiple market failures in credit,
insurance,...
Social cash transfers targeted to poorest of the
poor can have productive impacts
• Long term effects of improved human ca...
Households invest in livelihood activities—
though impact varies by country
Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana
Agricultural...
Shift from casual wage labor to on farm
and family productive activities
adults Zambia Kenya Malawi Lesotho Ghana
Agricult...
Improved ability to manage risk
Zambia Kenya Malawi Ghana Lesotho
Negative risk coping - - - - - -
Pay off debt +++ +++ NS...
Cash transfers lead to income multipliers
across the region
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Kenya
(Nyanza)
Ethiopia (Abi-
Adi)
Zimbabw...
Nearly all the spillover goes
to non-beneficiary households
What explains differences in impact?
Crop Livestock NFE Productive
labor
Social
Network
Zambia yes yes yes yes
Malawi yes ...
Predictability of payment
Regular and predictable transfers facilitate planning,
consumption smoothing and investment
0
1
...
Bigger transfer means more impact
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Ghana
LEAP
(old)
Kenya
CT-OVC
(big)
Burkina Kenya
CT-OVC
RSA
CS...
Demographic profile of beneficiaries
Under 5
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 4...
Economic context matters
• Vibrant and dynamic local economy?
• Opportunities awaiting if only a bit more liquidity?
Progr...
Size of income multiplier varies
by country and context
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Kenya
(Nyanza)
Ethiopia (Abi-
Adi)
Zimbabwe Za...
Beneficiaries are hard working and are responsible
for their own income generation and food security
How can cash transfer...
Agriculture, livelihood interventions play
important part in social protection systems
• Reaching social objectives and re...
Our websites
From Protection to Production Project
http://www.fao.org/economic/PtoP/en/
The Transfer Project
http://www.cp...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Economic and productive impacts of social protection in Africa

239

Published on

http://www.fao.org/economic/PtoP/en/

Presentation given by FAO Senior Economist, Benjamin Davis, during the African Union Expert Consultation on Children and Social Protection Systems, April 30, 2014, South Africa

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
239
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Economic and productive impacts of social protection in Africa

  1. 1. Economic and productive impacts of social protection in Africa Benjamin Davis Food and Agriculture Organization, the From Protection to Production Project, and the Transfer Project AU Expert Consultation on Children and Social Protection Systems Wednesday, April 30, 2014 Cape Town, South Africa
  2. 2. Why do livelihoods matter for social protection? • Most beneficiaries in Sub Saharan Africa are rural, engaged in agriculture and work for themselves – Zimbabwe: 88% produce crops; 75% have livestock – Kenya: 80% produce crops; 75% have livestock – Lesotho: 80% produce crops; 60% have livestock • Most grow local staples, using traditional technology and low levels of modern inputs – Most production consumed on farm • Most have low levels of productive assets – 1-2 hectares of agricultural land, a few animals, basic agricultural tools, few yeasrs of education • Engaged on farm, non farm business, casual wage labour (ganyu/maricho) • Large share of children work on the family farm
  3. 3. Reaching social goals requires sustainable livelihoods • Work in context of multiple market failures in credit, insurance, etc – Constrain economic decisions in investment, production, labor allocation, risk taking • Short time horizon—imperative of meeting immediate needs • Lack of liquidity, difficult to manage risk – Decisions about production and consumption linked • “non separability” of production and consumption means that social objectives are conditioned by livelihoods – Labor needs (adults and children), including domestic chores – Investment in schooling and health – Food consumption, dietary diversity and nutrition – Intra household decision making • Dynamic between men and women, old and young • Ultimately, reaching social goals requires sustainable livelihoods
  4. 4. Social cash transfers targeted to poorest of the poor can have productive impacts • Long term effects of improved human capital – Nutritional and health status; educational attainment – Labor productivity and employability • Transfers can relax some of constraints brought on by market failure (lack of access to credit, insurance) – Helping households manage risk – Providing households with liquidity • Transfers can reduce burden on social networks and informal insurance mechanisms • Infusion of cash can lead to multiplier effects in local village economy
  5. 5. Households invest in livelihood activities— though impact varies by country Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Agricultural inputs +++ - - - ++ +++ Agricultural tools +++ +++ NS NS NS Agricultural production +++ NS ++(1) NS Home production of food NS +++ +++ NS Livestock ownership All types All types Small ++(2) NS Non farm enterprise (NFE) +++ NS +FHH NS NS 1) Maize and garden plot vegetables 2) Pigs Stronger impact Mixed impact Less impact
  6. 6. Shift from casual wage labor to on farm and family productive activities adults Zambia Kenya Malawi Lesotho Ghana Agricultural/casual wage labor - - - - - - - - - -- NS Family farm +++ +++ +++ NS +++ Non farm business (NFE) +++ +++ NS NS Non agricultural wage labor +++ NS NS NS NS children Wage labor NS NS - - - NS NS Family farm NS - - - (1) +++ NS NS 1) Particularly older boys Shift from casual wage labour to family business—consistently reported in qualitative fieldwork No clear picture on child labor (but positive impacts on schooling)
  7. 7. Improved ability to manage risk Zambia Kenya Malawi Ghana Lesotho Negative risk coping - - - - - - Pay off debt +++ +++ NS Borrowing - - - NS - - - NS Purchase on credit NS NS NS Savings +++ +++ +++ Give informal transfers NS +++ +++ Receive informal transfers - - - NS +++ Strengthened social networks • In all countries, re-engagement with social networks of reciprocity— informal safety net • Allow households to participate, to “mingle” again • Reduction in negative risk coping strategies • Increase in savings, paying off debt and credit worthiness
  8. 8. Cash transfers lead to income multipliers across the region 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Kenya (Nyanza) Ethiopia (Abi- Adi) Zimbabwe Zambia Kenya (Garissa) Lesotho Ghana Ethiopia (Hintalo) Nominal multiplier Real multiplier Production constraints can limit local supply response, which may lead to higher prices and a lower multiplier Every 1 Birr transferred can generate 2.52 Birr of income If constraints are binding, may be as low as 1.84
  9. 9. Nearly all the spillover goes to non-beneficiary households
  10. 10. What explains differences in impact? Crop Livestock NFE Productive labor Social Network Zambia yes yes yes yes Malawi yes yes no yes small Kenya no small yes yes Lesotho yes small no no yes Ghana no no no small yes
  11. 11. Predictability of payment Regular and predictable transfers facilitate planning, consumption smoothing and investment 0 1 #ofpayments Zambia CGP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 #ofpayments Ghana LEAP Regular and predictableLumpy and irregular
  12. 12. Bigger transfer means more impact 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Ghana LEAP (old) Kenya CT-OVC (big) Burkina Kenya CT-OVC RSA CSG Lesotho CGP (base) Ghana LEAP (current) Kenya CT-OVC (small) Zim (HSCT) Zambia CGP Zambia MCP Malawi SCT Widespread impact Selective impact %orpercapitaincomeofpoor
  13. 13. Demographic profile of beneficiaries Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85 to 89 Over 90 1000 500 500 1000population Males Females Ghana LEAP Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85 to 89 Over 90 2000 500 500 2000population Males Females Zambia CGP More able-bodiedMore labour-constrained
  14. 14. Economic context matters • Vibrant and dynamic local economy? • Opportunities awaiting if only a bit more liquidity? Programme messaging matters • Messaging in unconditional programmes affects how households spend the transfer • Lesotho: CGP transfer combined with Food Emergency Grant – Instructed to spend on children (shoes and uniforms) – Instructed to spend on agricultural inputs – And they did!!
  15. 15. Size of income multiplier varies by country and context 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Kenya (Nyanza) Ethiopia (Abi- Adi) Zimbabwe Zambia Kenya (Garissa) Lesotho Ghana Ethiopia (Hintalo) Nominal multiplier Real multiplier Openness of local economies Where money is spent in local economy
  16. 16. Beneficiaries are hard working and are responsible for their own income generation and food security How can cash transfers be better linked to livelihoods? 1. Ensure regular and predictable payments 2. Link cash transfers to livelihood interventions 3. Consider messaging—it’s ok to spend on economic activities 4. Consider expanding targeting to include households with higher potential to sustainably achieve self-reliance – including able-bodied labour But keeping in mind potential conflicts and synergies with social objectives
  17. 17. Agriculture, livelihood interventions play important part in social protection systems • Reaching social objectives and reducing vulnerability require sustainable livelihoods • Almost three quarters of economically active rural population are smallholders, most producing own food • Small holder agriculture as key for rural poverty reduction and food security in Sub Saharan Africa – Relies on increased productivity, profitability and sustainability of small holder farming • Social protection and agriculture need to be articulated as part of strategy of rural development – Link to graduation strategies
  18. 18. Our websites From Protection to Production Project http://www.fao.org/economic/PtoP/en/ The Transfer Project http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/transfer
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×