Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)

Cash transfer programs are interventions that directly provide cash to target specific populations with the aim of reducing poverty and supporting a variety of development outcomes. Low- and middle-income countries have increasingly adopted cash transfer programs as central elements of their poverty reduction and social protection strategies. Bastagli et al. (2016) report that around 130 low- and middle-income countries have at least one UCT program, and 63 countries have at least one CCT program (up from 27 countries in 2008). Through a comprehensive review of literature, this report primarily considers the evidence of the long-term impacts of cash transfer programs in low- and lower middle-income countries. A review of 54 reviews that aggregate and summarize findings from multiple studies of cash transfer programs reveals largely positive evidence on long-term outcomes related to general health, reproductive health, nutrition, labor markets, poverty, and gender and intra-household dynamics, though findings vary by context and in many cases overall conclusions on the long-term impacts of cash transfers are mixed. In addition, evidence on long-term impacts for many outcome measures is limited, and few studies explicitly aim to measure long-term impacts distinctly from immediate or short-term impacts of cash transfers.

The concept of global public goods represents a framework for organizing and financing international cooperation in global health research and development (R&D). Advances in scientific and clinical knowledge produced by biomedical R&D can be considered public goods insofar as they can be used repeatedly (non-rival consumption) and it is difficult or costly to exclude non-payers from gaining access (non-excludable). This paper considers the public good characteristics of biomedical R&D in global health and describes the theoretical and observed factors in the allocation R&D funding by public, private, and philanthropic sources.

This report provides an overview of poultry market trends in Benin as compared to the wider West African region. In Benin, live chickens, hens, poultry meat, and eggs for consumption are subject to the 20 percent Common External Tariff (CET), which facilitates an influx of cheap poultry imports from the European Union (EU). Live turkeys and other poultry, reproducers, and hatching eggs are subject to a 5 percent tariff. In the late 1990s, Benin experienced an influx of cheap poultry products primarily from the EU. By 2002, annual poultry imports reached approximately 24,000 tons, more than the poultry imports of any other country in West Africa.  In 2004 and 2005, Benin banned imports of poultry and poultry by-products from countries affected by avian influenza. Current information about the poultry industry in Benin is limited. The primary sources for this analysis are a FAO poultry sector review from 2006, a poultry sector project report from the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), and a 2006 assessment by the Benin Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fishing. We find that the poultry sector plays an important economic, social and cultural role in Benin. Poultry and egg production is a major contributor to the agricultural sector and is an important source of nutrition and income for Beninese households. The poultry sector in Benin has the potential to improve the nutritional wellbeing and income security of a large percentage of the population. Traditional smallholders produce the majority of poultry products domestically; however, current production is limited due to low productivity, poor biosecurity, and lack of inputs. We find that a reduction of foreign imports and greater institutional support for the industry may help domestic producers reach their potential.

How development organizations, NGOs, and governments can best allocate scarce resources to those in need has long been debated. As opposed to universal allocation of resources, a more targeted approach attempts to minimize program costs while maximizing benefits among those with the greatest need or market opportunity. Many international development organizations strategically target clients based on geographic location (e.g., community, region, country) or socio-economic indicators, such as the World Bank’s “$1 a day” poverty line. Drawing on literature from several sectors, this brief presents additional methods of beneficiary targeting that international development organizations might consider. We find that beneficiary targeting/segmentation has the potential to make organizational and program efforts more equitable and efficient. With limited resources, smaller organizations have tended to use single robust indicators or simple heuristics, whereas agribusinesses and private sector firms have used more data-intensive marketing tools to position their products. Technological innovation and better access to data have made targeting more prevalent and potentially more affordable in agricultural development. However, creating valid and reliable target segments remains the most significant challenge.