Do early cash transfers in a food crisis enhance resilience? Evidence from Niger

Abstract

This article examines how households in the Tillabery region, in Niger, responded given early cash intervention, and its impact on household food access and ability to cope and recover from a food crisis. Food-access indicators are linked to the early cash-transfer programme and household social and demographic characteristics, and the relationships examined using descriptive and econometric methods. Although results indicate that the early cash-transfer programme had a positive impact on food access and reducing vulnerability, they also suggest, contrary to expectations, that the intervention was limited in contributing longer lasting impact on households' food security status.

Cet article examine comment les ménages de la région de Tillabery, au Niger, ont réagi lorsqu'on leur a octroyé des sommes d'argent en début d'intervention, et leur impact sur l'accès des ménages aux aliments et leur aptitude à faire face à la situation et à se relever d'une crise alimentaire. Les indicateurs relatifs à l'accès aux aliments sont liés au programme de transferts d'espèces précoces et aux caractéristiques sociales et démographiques des ménages, et les relations ont été examinées à l'aide de méthodes descriptives et économétriques. Si les résultats indiquent que le programme de transferts d'espèces précoces a eu un impact positif sur l'accès aux aliments et a réduit la vulnérabilité, ils suggèrent aussi, contre toute attente, que l'intervention s'est limitée à produire un impact plus durable sur la situation des ménages sur le plan de la sécurité alimentaire.

El presente artículo examina el desempeño mostrado por los hogares de la región Tillabery, en Níger, ante una transferencia de efectivo anticipada, midiendo su capacidad de poder acceder a víveres, de hacer frente a una crisis de alimentos y de recuperarse de ella. Los indicadores relativos al acceso a víveres fueron vinculados al programa de transferencia de efectivo de manera anticipada y a las características sociales y demográficas correspondientes a los hogares; estas relaciones fueron probadas mediante el uso de métodos descriptivos y econométricos. Aunque los hallazgos indican que el programa de transferencias de efectivo anticipadas tuvo un impacto positivo en cuanto al acceso a víveres y a la reducción de la vulnerabilidad, también sugieren, a diferencia de lo previsto, que dichas transferencias tuvieron menor eficacia a la hora de asegurar una mejoría en la seguridad alimentaria de los hogares a largo plazo.

Keywords:

• Environment (built and natural) – Food security
• Labour and livelihoods – Poverty reduction
• Civil society – NGOs
• Aid – Developmental policies
• Sub-Saharan Africa

Acknowledgements

The opinions expressed or conclusions made in this article are the author's. They do not necessarily reflect Oxfam's position. Many thanks to Eric Munoz and Madeleine Evrard Diakité, both with Oxfam, for providing useful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes on contributor

Emmanuel Tumusiime is Researcher for Economic Justice and Agriculture, Oxfam America.

Notes

1 Canada and the European Union, for instance, have completely untied food aid procurement from domestic sourcing regulations and now provide funding for use as cash or voucher, or procurement from local and regional markets. The United States, which historically is the largest contributor of emergency food aid, has also undertaken similar reforms, although to a lesser extent than Canada and the European Union.

2 The cash transfer is conditional on beneficiaries’ undertaking certain social services that improve their children's education and health, and providing labour for public works.

3 Over a three-month period, cash support to households ranged from US$120 to US$345. The amount received depended on a household's physical and human assets. Up to 60% of participating households received US$345, and 10% received less than US$200.

4 Due to resource constraints, the study unfortunately did not interview an equal number of control households as treatment households.

5 By definition, “food access” refers to the household's ability to acquire sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all household members’ nutritional requirements for productive lives, whereas “food availability” implies that sufficient quantities of appropriate types of food are consistently available to individuals or are within reasonable proximity to them (FANTA 2006).

6 The weights are based on the “nutrient density” of a food group (WFP 2007). See Table 2 for food groups and their respective weight values.

7 In principle, information about the actual amount of food consumed by a household or individual is a better indicator of quantity of food consumed than is frequency of food consumption. However, the inaccuracy or bias in recalling the actual amounts eaten in a week to the survey is generally considered much greater than in recalling the number of meals eaten in a day or week. And in practice, obtaining useful information when asking questions about actual amounts consumed can be challenging for enumerator capacity and skills in most surveys (WFP 2007).

8 We used the weight for individual coping strategies as established in Maxwell and Caldwell (2008). See Table 3 for coping strategies and respective weights.

9 The survey, unfortunately, did not ask control group households about who makes spending decisions at the household level.