Publications

There is increasing evidence that cash transfer (CT) programs decrease intimate partner violence (IPV); however, little is known about how CTs achieve this impact. We conducted a mixed method review of studies in low- and middle-income countries. Fourteen quantitative and nine qualitative studies met our inclusion criteria, of which eleven and six respectively demonstrated evidence that CTs decrease IPV. We found little support for increases in IPV, with only two studies showing overall mixed or adverse impacts. Drawing on these studies, as well as related bodies of evidence, we developed a program theory proposing three pathways through which CT could impact IPV: 1) Economic security and emotional wellbeing, 2) intra-household conflict, and 3) women’s empowerment. The economic security and wellbeing pathway hypothesizes decreases in IPV, while the other two pathways have ambiguous effects depending on program design features and behavioural responses to program components. Future studies should improve IPV measurement, empirical analysis of program mechanisms, and fill regional gaps. Program framing and complementary activities, including those with the ability to shift intra-household power relations are likely to be important design features for understanding how to maximize and leverage the impact of CTs for reducing IPV, and mitigating potential adverse impacts.

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental form of impact evaluation in which the population receiving the programme or policy intervention is chosen at random from the eligible population, and a control group is also chosen at random from the same eligible population. It tests the extent to which specific, planned impacts are being achieved. The distinguishing feature of an RCT is the random assignment of units (e.g. people, schools, villages, etc.) to the intervention or control groups. One of its strengths is that it provides a very powerful response to questions of causality, helping evaluators and programme implementers to know that what is being achieved is as a result of the intervention and not anything else.

L’un des éléments essentiels d’une évaluation d’impact est qu’il ne s’agit pas seulement de mesurer ou de décrire les changements survenus, mais également de comprendre le rôle joué par certaines interventions particulières (programmes ou politiques) dans ces changements. Ce processus est appelé attribution causale. Il existe trois grandes stratégies d’attribution causale dans les évaluations d’impact : 1) l’estimation du scénario contrefactuel ; 2) la vérification de la cohérence des données probantes pour les relations de cause à effet explicitement exposées dans la théorie du changement ; et 3) l’exclusion d’autres explications par le biais d’un processus logique fondé sur des données probantes. La stratégie d’attribution causale la mieux adaptée dépend du contexte d’évaluation et de ce qui est évalué.

Les évaluations d’impact ne doivent pas se cantonner à déterminer l’ampleur des effets (c’est-à-dire l’impact moyen), mais doivent également identifier qui a bénéficié de ces programmes ou politiques et comment. Il convient de préciser dès le début ce qui constitue une « réussite » et la façon dont les données seront analysées et synthétisées pour répondre aux questions clés d’évaluation. La collecte de données doit en effet permettre d’obtenir l’ensemble de données probantes nécessaires pour porter des jugements appropriés sur le programme ou la politique.

This paper focuses on a portion of the Australian fiscal stimulus and in particular on the 2009 Household Stimulus Package composed of three main cash payments: the Back to School Bonus, the Single Income Family Bonus and the Tax Bonus for Working Australians. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of these bonus payments in reducing poverty and stimulating consumption. In addition, our analysis gives special attention to these outcomes among children and poor people, due to their increased vulnerability during times of crisis.