Suchergebnisse

Slater R. Cash transfers, social protection and poverty reductionInt J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 250–259 © 2011 United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), International Journal of Social Welfare © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare.Cash transfers form an important and growing part of social protection programming in many developing countries. This article evaluates the use of different types of cash transfers in different regional contexts as a tool for reducing poverty and inequality in developing countries. Particular attention is paid to knowledge about the appropriateness and cost‐effectiveness of targeted versus universal cash transfers and about conditional versus unconditional transfers. The article finds that a fine balance is required. On the one hand, overambitious procedures for targeting or conditionality should be avoided where administrative capacity is low. On the other hand, to rule out any possibility of conditionality or targeting on the grounds of weak administrative capacity leaves only the option of universal transfers.

Studies of urban agriculture (UA) in South Africa, and more broadly in southern Africa, have drawn on quantitative research methodologies to explain the involvement in UA of people from low-income households. Such studies tend to explain UA with reference to the direct economic and monetary gains that are made through agricultural activity. In Cape Town, the contribution of UA to income generation and expenditure substitution is limited. However, UA is important to women of low-income households in ways less directly related to monetary gain. Women use UA in processes of empowerment, to establish social networks, to symbolise a sense of security and to encourage community development. Policy-makers should extend their perception of UA's benefits beyond narrow economistic notions to include these positive social effects. (Dev South Afr/DÜI)

This chapter explores the impacts of conflict on growth, economic activity and livelihoods–impacts that often last long into a post-conflict period. It considers the role of 'enabling environments' for successful economic and livelihood recovery, exploring the various elements of their construction. The chapter focuses on the dominant approaches to external economic engagement in conflict-affected situations, and the role of power, politics and informal institutions in mediating the experience and effects of policy reforms in conflict-affected situations. It discusses flaws, tensions and uncertainties in specific development practice, and highlights in particular the questionable positioning of economic growth as a means to achieving peacebuilding outcomes and the persistence of standardised, neo-liberal-orientated economic models. The chapter defines the politics of growth as the 'processes of conflict, negotiation and cooperation between interest groups in the use, production and distribution of resources'. ; Department for International Development

Social funds and large-scale community driven development (CDD) programmes are a popular policy instrument in post-conflict situations. This is partly because they are seen to alleviate pressure on governments to deliver development and reconstruction outcomes by transferring resources and responsibilities to community actors. However, part of their popularity can also be explained by claims that social funds and CDD programmes have the (transformative) potential to generate impacts beyond meeting basic needs, such as creating more peaceful societies at the local level and promoting trust in government. Drawing on a rigorous, evidence focused literature review, which began with researchers following a formal systematic review protocol, this practice note assesses the performance of 13 programmes against three distinct sets of impact indicators: (i) incomes, enterprise and access to services; (ii) social cohesion, stability and violence; and (iii) state-society relations. It is concluded that, although our understanding of the effectiveness of social funds and CDD in conflict-affected environments is limited by a low number of rigorous evaluations across a diverse range of contexts, as well as by an insufficient investigation of the relevant causal mechanisms, the findings so far suggest cause for cautious optimism.