2024-06-23-世界银行-现金或实物转移_结果是否因转移方式而异_（英）_9页_329kb

Summary: Cash vs In-Kind Transfers

Key Questions Addressed:

• What are the impacts of different transfer modalities (cash, in-kind, voucher)?
• Which modality is cost-effective?
• How do modalities influence program design?
• What gaps exist in the evidence?

Key Findings:

1. Cash Transfers: Generally more effective than in-kind or voucher transfers across diverse contexts for improving outcomes like reducing monetary poverty, enhancing health and nutrition, and increasing food security.
2. In-Kind & Voucher Transfers: Less effective overall, especially on health and nutrition outcomes. They can, however, be useful in specific contexts influenced by program objectives (e.g., behavior change, crisis provision, targeting) or due to lower uptake/complexity concerns (vouchers).
3. Food Transfers Specificity: Programs providing specialized infant/young child foods or staple foods tailored to nutritional needs showed mixed results compared to other modalities, with cash sometimes being superior, though further investigation is needed.
4. Productive Transfers: Combining transfers with inputs (like livestock, seeds) or trainings ("cash plus") showed mixed results, sometimes matching cash, sometimes lacking impact for target groups.
5. Cost-Effectiveness: Cash transfers are consistently the least expensive to administer out of the modalities reviewed.

Policy Considerations:

• Cash is generally more effective and cost-efficient.
• Modalities should be chosen based on specific outcomes, context, and program design components ("plus" interventions).
• Context matters significantly (e.g., security, market functioning, program goals).