Social protection and sustainable poverty reduction: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh

Abstract

in 1975, provides research-based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition. IFPRI's strategic research aims to foster a climate-resilient and sustainable food supply; promote healthy diets and nutrition for all; build inclusive and efficient markets, trade systems, and food industries; transform agricultural and rural economies; and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is integrated in all the Institute's work. Partnerships, communications, capacity strengthening, and data and knowledge management are essential components to translate IFPRI's research from action to impact. The Institute's regional and country programs play a critical role in responding to demand for food policy research and in delivering holistic support for country-led development. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world.

Effectiveness of cash-plus programmes on early childhood outcomes compared to cash transfers alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis in low- and middle-income countries

“…Only one programme [ 36 – 38 ] was designed for active father involvement throughout the intervention period. Three other programmes [ 32 , 39 – 42 ] had a portion of the plus component dedicated to father education, of which one programme [ 40 , 41 ] also invited mothers-in-law to participate in hopes of creating a supportive household environment. Further, only 4 programmes exclusively used a home visit model [ 36 – 38 , 43 – 45 ].…”

“…Seven studies were identified that combined cash transfers with nutrition BCC [ 32 , 40 , 41 , 44 – 47 ]. Most BCC components covered UNICEF’s Essential Family Practices on maternal and child nutrition, including exclusive breastfeeding (age <6 months) and complementary feeding (age >6 months), health and hygiene practices, and use of health services preventively and promptly when a child becomes ill [ 47 ].…”

“…There is also evidence that Cash + Nutrition BCC may reduce poverty. At the end of the intervention in Bangladesh [ 41 ], researchers found that cash-plus had greater reduced poverty head count (20% lower) and depth (6% lower) and severity (3% lower) of poverty compared to cash alone. While these differences were no longer statistically significant 4 years post-programme, there is other evidence of sustained reductions in poverty.…”

“…In contrast, one additional study found that cash-only had better outcomes than the cash-plus group on dietary diversity, iron food consumption, minimum meal frequency, and minimum acceptable diet [ 45 ]. There were also mixed findings on increasing ever or early breastfeeding (2/4) [ 32 , 44 , 46 , 47 ], increasing women’s decision-making agency (1/2) [ 32 , 41 ], increasing medical care seeking for a sick child (1/2) [ 32 , 47 ] or reducing fever and cough/cold (1/2) or general child illness (1/1) [ 32 , 40 , 47 ].…”

“…This would provide a complete picture of the impact of cash-plus programmes and the potential synergies of cash and plus components above and beyond either component alone. Only 3 programmes included in this review utilised a study design that would allow for most of these conclusions [ 40 , 41 , 47 , 50 ]. However, whether a no-intervention control is possible is impacted by whether a national cash transfer programme already exists and similarly, if no intervention would be unethical, such as in a crisis context.…”