The document discusses the importance of gender-responsive social safety nets (SSNs) in improving women's wellbeing in Africa, highlighting key research findings that show varying degrees of positive impacts across multiple domains such as food security, economic outcomes, empowerment, psychological wellbeing, and gender-based violence. It emphasizes the need for detailed understanding of design features that impact effectiveness while noting significant gaps in current research. The authors call for intentional efforts to close these gaps to ensure that SSNs do not exacerbate gender inequalities but instead promote gender equality.

1. Amber Peterman, Neha Kumar, Audrey Pereira & Dan Gilligan
Transfer Project Workshop 2019: Arusha Tanzania
SOCIAL SAFETY NETS & WOMEN’S WELLBEING IN
AFRICA: ARE WE MOVING THE BAR?

2. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ACCOUNTING FOR “GENDER”?
A SIMPLE TYPOLOGY
Does not recognize
gender issues by ignoring
gender roles & gender
gaps (in various
dimensions) in their
design, which reinforces
gender inequalities.
Recognizes gender
issues in design, but
takes no measures to
address these gender
inequalities.
Recognizes gender
inequalities, also takes
measures to address
them.
GENDER BLIND
[DISCRIMATORY]
GENDER
NEUTRAL
GENDER
TRANSFORMATIVE
[SENSITIVE]
• Are gender considerations instrumental (e.g. functional &
operational?) or intrinsic (e.g. goal of reducing inequalities?)

3. “Comprehensive social protection
systems need to be gender-responsive
to a) ensure they do not further
exacerbate gender inequality and that
they b) promote gender equality.”
~Africa Ministerial Pre-Commission
on the Status of Women (CSW) 2019

4. Key Questions
01.
Are social safety nets increasing
women’s wellbeing along key
domains in Africa?
02.
If so (if not), do we know what
design features matter?
03.
What evidence commitments are
needed to get us to be able to meet
aspirational goals?

5. REVIEW METHODOLOGY
• Strategy: Review of reviews, key websites,
backward & forward citations, google scholar
searches, emails to experts
• Inclusion criteria: Published & grey, Africa, 2000
onwards, experimental & quasi-experimental
• SSNs: Economic transfers (cash, in-kind,
vouchers, conditional, unconditional etc.), public
works (cash for work), school feeding
Outcomes (women aged 18+ years):
1. Food security
2. Economic outcomes
3. Empowerment
4. Psychological wellbeing
5. Gender-based violence

6. 1. FOOD SECURITY, DIETARY DIVERSITY & NUTRITION
• 4 studies (4 countries)
• 20 indicators
40%
11%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dietary diversity Nutritional
biomarkers
Food security
Increase Decrease Not significant
Impacts on Indicator Groups
• Overall:
 1 out of 4 (25%) study shows
promising impacts
 No studies with mixed or
negative impacts
• Low number of total studies
indicates lack of reporting on
individual level outcomes

7. 2. ECONOMIC OUTCOMES
• 12 studies (9 countries)
• 105 indicators
Impacts on Indicator Groups
• Overall:
• 6 out of 12 (50%) studies
show promising impacts
• 3 (25%) studies show mixed
or negative impacts
• “Negative” impacts largely reflect
indicators of hard manual labor
or labor for elderly samples
100%
50%
24%
13%
100% 100%0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Increase Decrease Not significant
LFP: Labor Force Participation

8. 3. EMPOWERMENT OUTCOMES
• 14 studies (10 countries)
• 65 indicators
Impacts on Indicator Groups
• Overall:
• 5 out of 14 (36%) studies
show promising impacts
• 1 (7%) study shows negative
impacts
• Outcomes heavily dominated by
“decisionmaking”- measurement
issues?
30%
15%
25%
0
5
10
15
20
25
Increase Decrease Not significant

9. 4. PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING
• 9 studies (6 countries)
• 45 indicators
Impacts on Indicator Groups
• Overall:
• 5 out of 9 (56%) studies
show promising impacts
• 1 study shows negative
impacts
• Sub-group results even more
promising = larger impacts
among poorer samples
• Qualitative work supports strong
impacts
70%
47%
43% 38%
100%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Increase Decrease Not significant
QoL: Quality of Life

10. 5. GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE
• 5 studies (5 countries)
• 28 indicators
Impacts on Indicator Groups
• Overall:
 4 out of 5 (80%) of studies
show promising impacts
 No studies with mixed or
negative impacts
• Only one study measured
outcomes beyond Intimate partner
violence (IPV)
• Family structure appears to
matter
63%
50% 40%
20% 17%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Decreases Increases Not significant

11. WHAT DESIGN FEATURES MATTER?
Short answer: We don’t really know!
• Gender of recipient?  Inconclusive, few studies & mixed findings
• Conditionalities & behavioral features?  Inconclusive, suggests
potential for both increasing & decreasing effectiveness
• Payment features?  Promising, more $$, lump sums, mobile
transfers
• Operational  Promising, potential to mitigate against adverse effects
& allow women to participate
• Plus & integration  Untapped potential, almost no evaluations able
to measure synergistic effects but many in progress

12. CONCLUSIONS
& RESEARCH GAPS
01. SSNs in Africa are having positive
impacts on women’s wellbeing—some
domains more promising than others—
evidence strongly cash transfer
dominant
02. From existing quantitative
evaluations, we have little
understanding of what design features
matter
03. Large gaps in understanding
coverage (by sex), measurement of key
concepts & true gender analysis – we
must be intentional to close these gaps!

13. Email: apeterman@unicef.org
@a_peterman | @TransferProjct
transfer.cpc.unc.edu
AHSANTENI!

14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Full citation: Amber Peterman, Neha Kumar, Audrey Pereira & Dan Gilligan (2019). Towards Gender
Equality: A critical assessment of evidence on Social Safety Nets in Africa. Chapter, ATOR: Gender
Parity in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes (working paper).
• We thank the Agnes Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Jemimah Njuki and Emily Myers for helpful
feedback on an earlier outline of this chapter draft. This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR
Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) led by the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI). Funding support for this study was provided by the CGIAR Research
Program PIM.
• Slide 1: © FAO/IvanGrifi/19431674444_a702f46a21
• Slide 4: © FAO/IvanGrifi/19431617964_bf1542f18a
• Slide 13: © FAO/IvanGrifi/20054330395_0779fb2c94