Alessandro Carraro, Yekaterina Chzhen, Lucia Ferrone Social and Economic Policy Unit UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti August 28, 2019 ISCI Annual Conference, Tartu (EE)

1. Alessandro Carraro, Yekaterina Chzhen, Lucia Ferrone
Social and Economic Policy Unit
UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti
August 28, 2019
ISCI Annual Conference, Tartu (EE)
Unconditional cash transfers and
Multidimensional Child Poverty:
Lesotho’s Child Grant Programme

2. Background
 We know cash transfers are a key policy tool in low- and middle-income countries to
alleviate poverty and improve children’s outcomes in education, health and nutrition
(Fiszbein et al., 2009; Slater 2011);
 SDG 1 (1.1, 1.2): monetary poverty vis a vis non-monetary poverty measures (Roelen and
Gassmann, 2008; Roelen, 2010);
 Importance of evaluating the impacts of cash transfers on a multidimensional measure.
 Gendered impacts of shocks: gender-based vulnerabilities, FHH usually shock absorbers,
women have less control over resources than men;
 Risk buffering strategies: Detrimental vs Non detrimental (ie. reducing food consumption;
pulling children out of school; selling productive assets vs Cash transfers).

3. Research Question
 Q1: is Lesotho’s CGP effective in reducing Multidimensional Poverty (MDCP) among children
living in FHH households experiencing shocks?
Higher burdens of disease have been found among children living with sick parents or
caregivers (Kidman et al. 2010; Thielman et al. 2012; Luseno et al., 2014)
 Q2: is Lesotho’s CGP effective in reducing MDCP in labour-constrained FHH?

4. Data &
Methodology
1. 𝑋1: CGP
 Lesotho, Child Grand Programme evaluation data
 Objective: improving “the living standards of Orphans and other
Vulnerable Children (OVC) so as to reduce malnutrition, improve
health status, and increase school enrolment among OVCs”
(OPM, 2014).
 Children 4-17 years old
 Baseline 2011, Follow up 2013
 HH: 1883 T - 1695 C
 Randomized Control Trial  Randomization at community level
 Balance tests: OK
 Treated and Control communities both have eligibles (E=get the
CGP) non eligible (NE=don’t get the CGP)
Eligibility
NE E Total
CGP
C 893 3,268 3,351
T 1,018 2,697 3,715
Total 2,001 5,065 7,066
Children 4-17 years old – Sample Size

5. Data &
Methodology
2. 𝑋2 = FHH
Children (4-17) living in HH where:
Full Sample
FHH MHH
Head Age (years) 57.91 51.08
Head Education (average years) 5.02 3.69
% Single Head 97% 11%
% Married Head 3% 88%
% Widow Head 86% 7%
% Elder 49% 30%
% Head Not Fit to Work (NFTW) 64% 45%
% Head has Chronic Illness (CI) 34% 23%
N 3290 3866

6. Data &
Methodology
3. 𝑋3 = Shocks
Demographic
Economic
Agricultural
Social
1. Death of HH member
2. Death of person the HH depended on
3. Serious injury or illness in HH
4. Abondonment of divorce
5. Teenage pregnancy
1. Loss of a regular job of a HH member
2. Failure or bankruptcy of business
3. Increase in agr. input price
4. Increase in Food prices
1. Widespread death/disease of livestock
2. Crop failure
1. Serious family conflict
2. Decrease in remittances & support from
3. Termination of institutional support
4. Theft, fire, or destruction of household

7. Data &
Methodology
4. 𝑌= MODA
Dimension Deprived if… Age groups
Health
Health status (poor or fair)
0-17
Education
Enrolment/preschool
4-11
Grade for age
12-17
Nutrition/Food
security
Any child 0-17 have to eat FEWER MEAL
HH level
Water
Water source
HH level
Distance to water source (minutes)
HH living standard
indicator
Walls are of non-resistant material
HH levelFloor is of natural material
Child labour
Has done any work or >5 hrs of
domestic chores in last 7 days 5-12
Has done >14 hrs of work or >5 hrs of
domestic chores in last 7 days 12-14
Has done >43 hrs of work
15-17

8. Data &
Methodology
4. 𝑌= MODA

9. Econometric strategy (1)
 1.1: we investigate the determinants of shocks (LPM)
 1.2: examine the effect of the shocks on MD poverty (OLS)
 (𝑦𝑖𝑡 𝐸𝑙𝑖𝑔 = 1 = 𝛿0 + 𝛿1 𝑆𝑡 + 𝛿𝑖 𝐶𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖𝑡
 𝑆𝑡 = 1 if HH experiences a shock
 2: we examine the OVERALL effect of the CGP on MD poverty for children living in shocked FHH
 (𝑦𝑖𝑡 𝐸𝑙𝑖𝑔 = 1 = 𝛿0 + 𝛿1 𝐷𝑖𝐷𝑖𝑡 + 𝛿2 𝑆𝑡 + 𝛿3 𝐹𝐻𝐻𝑡 + 𝛿4(𝑆𝑡 ∗ 𝐹𝐻𝐻 ∗ 𝐷𝑖𝐷𝑖𝑡) + ⋯ + 𝛿𝑖 𝐶𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖𝑡
 𝐷𝑖𝐷𝑖𝑡 = CGP * 𝑇2010
 Yit is MODA: HC 2+; HC 3+; HC 4+
 3: Third, we extend the model to the ultra poor
(children living in shocked FHH whose head is labour constrained)
 CHRONICALLY ILL (CI)
 NOT-FIT TO WORK (NFTW)

10. 1.1 What are the main determinants of shocks?
NS impacts are not shown
• Children living in a FHH are more likely to experience «Any type of shock» (p<0.01)
«Demo shock»(p<0.01) and «Econ Shocks» (p<0.1)
• Children living in a labour constrained household (NFTW, CI) are more likely to
experience «Any type of shock» (p<0.01) «Demo shock»(p<0.01)

11. 1.2 Do shocks have an impact on children MD Poverty?
0.046
0.012
0.039
0.014
-0.012
0.042
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
HC 2+
HC 3+
HC 4+
Agri Shock Social Shock Economic Shock Demo Shock Any Shock
***
**
*
**
*
*
NS impacts are not shown
• Shocks increase the linear probability of experiencing MD poverty
• Significant impacts for children experiencing 3 or 4 simultaneous deprivations  most vulnerable

12. 2. Is CGP buffering children living in FHH from
negative shocks?
X
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
HC 2+
DiD * FHH * Any Shock -0.083
[-1.12]
DiD * FHH * Demo Shock -0.127
[-1.21]
DiD * FHH * Econ Shock -0.450**
[-2.27]
DiD * FHH * Social Shock -0.219
[-1.01]
DiD * FHH * Agri Shock 0.002
[0.01]
Observations 5039 5039 5039 5039 5039
r2 0.037 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.033
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
HC 3+
-0.094
[-1.42]
-0.127
[-1.31]
-0.226
[-1.53]
0.018
[0.13]
-0.169*
[-1.80]
5039 5039 5039 5039 5039
0.026 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.026
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
HC 4+
-0.022
[-1.17]
-0.044*
[-1.66]
-0.027
[-1.09]
0.054
[0.83]
-0.044
[-1.02]
5039 5039 5039 5039 5039
0.009 0.010 0.007 0.008 0.008
 Despite the predominance of negative signs, CGP impacts are significantly different between
FHH and MHH only under certain circustances (Econ Shock (2+); Agri Shock (3+); Demo Shock
(4+))

13. 3.1 Is CGP buffering labour constrained FHH from
the negative impacts of shocks on MD poverty?
Good news for children living in FHH where the
head is “Chronically Ill”:
 CGP buffers them against MDP (4+ case) when
hit by “Econ Shock” or “Any Shock” or “Demo
Shock” (5% significance)
 this buffering effect is absent for children
living in FHH where the head is “Not
Chronically Ill”

14.  Children living in FHH where the head is “Not
Fit to Work” are protected as well against MDP
(2+;3+;4+ cases), but only when hit by “Econ
Shock”
 …this buffering effect is absent for children
living in FHH where the head is “Fit to Work”,
where the CGP has a mitigating effect mostly
for the 2+ case (Social+Agri Shock)
(Not shown)
3.2 Is CGP buffering labour constrained FHH from
the negative impacts of shocks on MD poverty

15. Summary
 We highlight the importance of Cash transfers as a valuable shock-coping strategy
 FHH and labour constrained HH head are more likely to experience shocks
 Shocks (Any Shock, Demo Shock, Agri Shock) are positively associated with MDCP (increase
deprivation levels) especially when it comes to more vulnerable children (those
experiencing 4+ deprivations)
 No effects on the overall population of FHH vs MHH
 Significant effects for children living in FHH labour constrained households (wrt MHH) in
decreasing the risk of MD poverty, in the wake of negative shocks.

16. Thank you!
 We thank the Government of Lesotho, UNICEF-Lesotho, the Carolina Population Centre, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Food and Agricultural Organization of UN for making these data available