and the government of Nepal favored not only continuance of cash transfers , but also an expansion of the program . Arguments they cited : Cash could boost economic growth in the local economy , recipients of cash would be empowered by giving them choice over expenditure , and cash would be more effective than in-kind transfers .
With regard to the second goal of the study - determining to what extent greater cash transfers can contribute to poverty reduction - it was found that in Nepal , although donors and government were very positive about this assistance tool , the likelihood of actually reducing poverty through an expansion of cash transfers was estimated to be low . Cash transfer values contributed to only 15 % of household basic needs expenditures of the recipient families - nowhere near enough to pull them out of poverty . The cash transfers were not linked to any other programs or services for improving their livelihood / income . In some areas of the country , insurgency and armed conflict continued to pose problems for delivery of additional cash transfers . Local government institutional capacity for cash transfer delivery was minimal to non-existent ; the Village Development Committees responsible for delivering cash transfers had still not become fully operational since their inception in 2002 . Hence , it was assessed that expanded cash transfers would be an unlikely means for poverty reduction .
In Sierra Leone , the likelihood of cash transfers contributing to poverty was also assessed to be low . The government of Sierra Leone had piloted a Social Safety Net ( SSN ) program in 2007 , targeting the elderly and certain other vulnerable population groups . The households in receipt of SSN cash transfers ( 16,000 total households ) were receiving only $ 62 every six months . A second program was the cash-for-work program implemented by the Ministry of Youth and Sports ; it targeted unemployed youth , ex-combatants , and former refugees . Recipients were provided $ 2 per day . However , this cash transfer / cash-for-work program was not linked to any employment agency / organization nor linked to any skills / training program . Long-term employment was not being promoted . For both these cash transfer programs , the government had no plans to increase national spending . Hence , it was assessed that expanded cash transfers would not serve long-term poverty reduction .
With regard to the third goal of the study - examining the role of cash transfer programming for state development and social cohesion - it was assessed that in Nepal , in theory , cash transfers could support the building of state-citizen relationships by targeting vulnerable / excluded population groups and linking those cash transfers to other services ( e . g ., civil documentation services , legal services , employment services ). However , in practice , Nepal lacked the institutional capacity to execute comprehensive cash transfer programs . The Village Development Committees ( newly responsible at the local level for social assistance deliveries ) were not yet operational / capable of administering and delivering top-down cash transfers , and Nepal ' s social security budget did not include provision for improving their capacity . Hence , although the study
Table of Contents | Quick Look | Contact PKSOI Page 36 of 58