LEADER 05516oam 22005295 450 001 9910824855103321 005 20170924202154.0 010 $a1-4648-0911-9 024 7 $a10.1596/978-1-4648-0910-1 035 $a(CKB)3710000000866292 035 $a(EBL)4694083 035 $a(OCoLC)959151086 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4694083 035 $a(The World Bank)210910 035 $a(US-djbf)210910 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000866292 100 $a20020129d2016 uf 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 14$aThe Other Side of the Coin : $eThe Comparative Evidence of Cash and in-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations? /$fUgo Gentilini 210 1$aWashington, D.C. :$cThe World Bank,$d2016. 215 $a1 online resource (66 pages) 225 1 $aWorld Bank Studies 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-4648-0910-0 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $aFront Cover; Contents; Acknowledgments; About the Author; Executive Summary; Abbreviations; Chapter 1 Introduction; Chapter 2 Positioning the Debate: A Strategic Perspective; Note; Chapter 3 Choice and Paternalism: The Economics of Transfer Selection; Notes; Chapter 4 Comparative Performance across Sectors; Food Security; Livelihoods and Entrepreneurship; Nutrition; Health; Education; Shelter; Cross-Sectoral or "Multi-Purpose" Transfers; Notes; Chapter 5 Factors to Consider in Transfer Selection; Objectives and Initial Conditions; Understanding Markets; Expected Cost-Effectiveness 327 $aImplementation CapacityProtection and Gender; Political Economy; Note; Chapter 6 Evidence Gaps and Research Priorities; Chapter 7 Conclusions; Appendix A Features of Comparative Impact Evaluations of Food Security Modalities; Appendix B Absolute Differences in Impacts in Food Security (percentage points); References; Boxes ; 4.1 Procurement versus Delivery Costs: Evidence from Ecuador and the Republic of Yemen; 4.2 Cash and in-Kind-Based Grants; 4.3 Vouchers for Emergency Health and Sanitation; 4.4 Piloting Cash for Shelter Needs; Figures 327 $a2.1 Trends in In-kind Food and Humanitarian Cash Transfers4.1 Difference in Total Costs Between Transfer Modalities, with and Without Procurement Analysis; Tables ; 4.1 Summary of Impacts from Comparative Food Security Studies; 4.2 Cost of Transfer Modalities by Scale of Operations; 4.3 Cost of Transfer Modalities by Humanitarian Context; 4.4 Summary of Efficiency from Comparative Food Security Studies; 4.5 Summary of Evidence from Comparative Livelihood Studies; 6.1 Relative Level of Comparative Evidence; 6.2 Level of Comparative Evidence by Objective; Back Cover 330 3 $aOver 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated by several actors, and for good reasons: they have the potential to provide choice, empower people, and spark economic multipliers. But what is their comparative performance relative to in-kind transfers? Are there objectives for which there are particular evidence gaps? And what should be considered when choosing between those forms of assistance? This paper is one of the first reviews examining those questions across humanitarian sectors and in relation to multiple forms of assistance, including cash, vouchers, and in-kind assistance (food and non-food). These were assessed based on solid impact evaluations and through the lens of food security, nutrition, livelihoods, health, education, and shelter objectives. The paper finds that there is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. This ranges from areas where evidence is substantial (i.e., food security) to realms where it is limited (i.e., nutrition) or where not a single comparative evaluation was available (i.e., health, education, and shelter). Where evidence is substantial, data shows that the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average. In terms of costs, cash is generally more efficient to delivery. However, overall costs would hinge on the scale of interventions, crisis context, procurement practices, and a range of 'hidden costs'. In other words, the appropriateness of transfers cannot be predetermined and should emerge from response analysis that considers program objectives, the level of market functionality, predicted cost-effectiveness, implementation capacity, the management of key risks such as on protection and gender, political economy, beneficiary preferences, and resource availability. Finally, it seems possible (and necessary) to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with solid research to inform decision-making, especially on dimensions beyond food security. 410 0$aWorld Bank e-Library. 606 $aHumanitarian assistance$xEconomic aspects 606 $aEconomic assistance 615 0$aHumanitarian assistance$xEconomic aspects. 615 0$aEconomic assistance. 676 $a361.2 700 $aGentilini$b Ugo$01663408 701 $aGentilini$b Ugo$01663408 801 0$bDJBF 801 1$bDJBF 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910824855103321 996 $aThe Other Side of the Coin$94020700 997 $aUNINA