This presentation reviews the evidence of how the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) impacted food and nutrition security among households.

1. Impacts of an Unconditional Cash Transfer on
Household Food and Nutrition Security in Malawi
Kristen Brugh,1
Gustavo Angeles,1 Peter Mvula,2 & Maxton Tsoka2
Giving Cash to the Poor? Impacts of Africa’s Unconditional Cash Transfers
APPAM 2015 Fall Research Conference
The Malawi SCTP Evaluation Team
1 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
2 Centre for Social Research, University of Malawi

2. Research Questions
Does the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) have
an impact on household food and nutrition security?
• Improve current economic vulnerability to food
insecurity?
• Increase food consumption?
• Improve diet quality?

3. Summary
Does the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) have
an impact on household food and nutrition security?
• Improve current economic vulnerability to food
insecurity?
‒Yes, weak evidence
• Less likely to worry about having enough food
• Increase expenditures on food
• Decrease food share

4. Summary
Does the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) have
an impact on household food and nutrition security?
• Increase food consumption?
‒Yes, strong evidence
• More likely to have ≥2 meals/day
• Consume more calories
• Less likely to be food energy deficient
• Smaller hunger deficit

5. Summary
Does the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) have
an impact on household food and nutrition security?
• Improve diet quality?
‒No evidence

6. Theory of Change
Engel’s Law
• As income increases, household decreases its budget
share of food
Bennett’s Law
• As income increases, households reduce food budget
share of starchy staples and substitute toward fruits,
vegetables, dairy, and meat
Poor households
• Higher expenditure elasticity for food
• Higher marginal utility for calories

7. Theory of Change
Our study households are the most destitute and vulnerable
Expectations
• Choose a diet which maximizes caloric content
• Majority of food budget devoted to staple foods
• After meeting a critical caloric quantity threshold, shift to
foods with improved caloric quality
Caveat
• Baseline data collected post-harvest
• Midline data collected during lean-season

8. Empirical Approach: Outcome Measures
Current Economic Vulnerability
• Worried not enough food during past week
• Annualized real p.c. food expenditures (MWK Aug ‘13)
• Food share
Diet Quantity
• Consumed ≥ 2 meals/day
• P.C. daily energy acquisition
• Food energy deficient
• Hunger Depth
Diet Quality
• Household Diet Diversity Score (HDDS)
• Proportion food energy from staples
• Expenditures – 5 food groups
• Food share – 5 food groups

9. Empirical Approach: Diff-in-Diff w/ GLM Models
Basic Model
𝑌𝑗𝑘𝑡 = 𝑔 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 + 𝛽2 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 + 𝜷 𝟑 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 + 𝛽4 𝑋𝑗𝑘𝑡 + 𝜀𝑗𝑘𝑡
Heterogeneous Model
𝑌𝑗𝑘𝑡 = 𝑔
𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 + 𝛽2 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 + 𝛽3 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 + 𝛽4 𝑋𝑗𝑘𝑡 + 𝛽5 𝑀𝑂𝐷𝑗𝑘
+ 𝛽6 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑀𝑂𝐷𝑗𝑘 + 𝛽7 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 ∗ 𝑀𝑂𝐷𝑗𝑘 + 𝜷 𝟖 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 ∗ 𝑀𝑂𝐷𝑗𝑘
+ 𝜀𝑗𝑘𝑡
Transfer Share Model
𝑌𝑗𝑘𝑡 = 𝑔
𝛼0 + 𝛼1 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 + 𝛼2 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 + 𝛼3 𝑇𝑋𝑆𝐻𝑅 𝑘 + 𝜶 𝟒 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 + 𝛼5 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑇𝑋𝑆𝐻𝑅 𝑘
+ 𝛼6 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 ∗ 𝑇𝑋𝑆𝐻𝑅 𝑘 + 𝜶 𝟕 𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑘 ∗ 𝑇𝐼𝑀𝐸 ∗ 𝑇𝑋𝑆𝐻𝑅 𝑘 + 𝛼8 𝑋𝑗𝑘𝑡
+ 𝜀𝑗𝑘𝑡

10. Empirical Approach: Study Sample
N = 3,163 households (94% of panel)
• 1,479 Treatment
• 1,682 Delayed-Entry Control
Treatment and Control balanced at baseline
No evidence of selective or differential attrition

11. Results: Current Economic Vulnerability
Outcome Impact Baseline Mean
T Hhld
Midline Mean
C Hhld
Midline Mean
Worried about food -0.11+ 0.84 0.77 0.88
PC food exp. 4,303+ 34,016 27,711 24,516
Food share -0.02*** 0.80 0.74 0.77
Notes: Average Marginal Effects. + p<0.10; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
• Heterogeneous impacts by baseline poverty level for p.c. food exp.
and food share
• Impacts on worried about food and p.c. food exp. significant
among households with child 0-17
• Differential impact on p.c. food exp. by transfer share

12. Results: Diet Quantity
Outcome Impact Baseline Mean
T Hhld
Midline Mean
C Hhld
Midline Mean
≥ 2 meals/day 0.11+ 0.80 0.94 0.87
Daily PC Kcal 325*** 1,770 1,657 1,489
Energy Deficient -0.12*** 0.64 0.68 0.76
Hunger Depth -179*** 554 534 653
Notes: Average Marginal Effects. + p<0.10; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
• Heterogeneous impacts by baseline poverty level and distance to
the market for ≥ 2 meals/day
• Results very similar among households with children
• Differential impact on daily p.c. Kcal by transfer share

13. Results: Diet Quality
Outcome Impact Baseline Mean
T Hhld
Midline Mean
C Hhld
Midline Mean
HDDS 0.51 5.61 5.78 5.31
Proportion staples -0.01 0.83 0.81 0.82
Exp. Cereal 1,759*** 18,838 12,839 11,857
Exp. Fruit/Veg 559 5,504 7,094 6,535
Exp. Meat 838 2,512 3,474 2,886
Exp. Legumes 345 4,250 2,269 1,687
Exp. Other 1,247+ 2,912 2,034 1,552
Shr. Cereal -0.01 0.57 0.48 0.50
Shr. Fruit/Veg -0.01 0.19 0.26 0.27
Shr. Meat 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.11
Shr. Legumes -0.01 0.12 0.07 0.06
Shr. Other 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.06
Notes: Average Marginal Effects. + p<0.10; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

14. Results: Relative Impacts
20%
12%
35%
PC FOOD EXP.
31%
54%
14%
68%
50% 48%
PC KCAL*** HUNGER DEPTH
 Total  Low Tx Share  High Tx Share
Current Economic Vulnerability Diet Quantity

15. Conclusions
Small program impact on current economic vulnerability to
food insecurity.
Strong protective program impact on diet quantity during
the lean season.
No evidence of program impact on diet quality.
After one year of program exposure, treatment
households attempted to increase diet quantity
rather than improve diet quality.

16. Thank you

17. SCT and IHS3-Rural Ultra Poor: Still fewer of working-age
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
<5
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
Percent
SCT Eligible Population by Age and Sex
(N = 16,078)
Male Female
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Percent
IHS3 Rural Ultra-Poor Population by Age and
Sex (N = 12,750)
Male Female