Social cash transfers, generational relations

and youth poverty trajectories in rural Lesotho and Malawi: preliminary findings

Nicola AnsellBrunel University London

The Team

Dr Elsbeth Robson

University of Hull

Dr Nicola Ansell

Brunel University

Prof Lorraine van Blerk

University of Dundee

Dr Flora Hajdu

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dr Evance Mwathunga

Chancellor College

Thandie Hlabana

National University of Lesotho

Roeland Hemsteede

University of Dundee

Background to the research

Social cash transfers (SCTs) – what do we know?• Address symptoms of poverty in target populations

• Consumption, nutrition, school enrolment, child immunisation• Evaluations have focused on direct beneficiaries

• Children, elderly• What about those who don’t receive the

grants?• But what about other age groups?• What about those in other households?

So the research isn’t about child poverty …• We’re interested in young adults• We’re interested in relations of age, gender and

generation

• But as children experience poverty relationally, this is important for children too

Theoretical perspective• Poverty can’t be addressed just by focusing on

symptoms or isolated categories like children or elderly

• Poverty is relational – it’s about relationships not just individuals (between ages, genders, generations)

• Relationships are power-laden • (Also policy level power relations that shape the

cash transfer schemes)

We are beginning to explore …• How social cash transfer schemes impact on young adults• How they shape young adults’ experiences of poverty• How they affect social relations of age, gender and generation

• How the shape of cash transfers relates to the policy-making context

The research: settings and methods

The research• A three-year comparative project • In depth case studies in two rural

settings (where the team conducted research with 10-24-year-olds in 2007/8)

• Malawi – focusing mainly on the government SCT programme

• Lesotho – focusing on old age pensions and child grants

Setting 1: Malawi SCTsProgramme Target population Disbursement Starting year Scale Organisations involved

Unconditional cash transfers to ultra-poor labour constrained households

Ultra-poor households (those in lowest income quintile) that are labour constrained (no able bodied adults aged 19-64, or a dependency ratio higher than 3)10% of households nationallyIdentified via Community Social Protection Committees

Range MK1000 a month for households with one member to MK2,400 for households with four members plus MK300 (top-up for each resident aged <22 in primary school and MK600 for each resident aged <31 in secondary school

2006 (Mchinji Pilot), extended to 9 of 28 districts (including Thyolo) reaching 30,000 households by 2012. Further expansion planned, aiming to reach 300,000 households by 2015

£40m a year by 2015 (1.6% of GDP)

Administration: Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare with policy oversight from Ministry of Economic Planning and DevelopmentFunding: Global Fund (2007-12), German Government, Irish Aid, EU, World BankTechnical support: UNICEF Malawi

Setting 1: Malawi field site

Nihelo

•Thyolo District•20 mins walk from Chimaliro •14km from main Blantyre road

Setting 2: Lesotho SCTsProgramme Target population Disbursement Starting year Scale Organisations

involvedOld Age Pension Individuals aged

over 70, except those already receiving a government pension

M350 a month 200480,000 beneficiaries (77% of those eligible)

1.6% of GDP Administration: Ministry of FinanceFunding: Lesotho Government

Child Grants Programme

Poor households with at least one child 22% of households in programme areas

M360 a quarter for households with 1-2 children, M600 for 3-4 children, M750 for 5+ children.

2009 (limited areas); expanded to 19,800 households and 65,000 children across all 10 districts by March 2014

Estimated M50-58m ($4m) 2014/5 (0.2% of GDP) rising to M91-311m ($7-25m) 2020/1 (0.2-0.8% of GDP)

Administration: Ministry of Social DevelopmentFunding: EU and (from 2009) Lesotho GovernmentTechnical support: UNICEF Lesotho

Public Assistance Extremely poor individuals (low awareness)

M250 a month 1988 18,000 Admin: Ministry of Social DevelopmentFunder: Government

Setting 2: Lesotho field site

• Mountain village • Located in Maseru District• Two hours’ walk from Marakabei• 7km from Thaba

-Tseka road

Ha Rantelali

MethodsPhase 1 (2016)• Household profiling • Follow-up interviews with previous research participants• Interviews with members of households receiving cash transfersPhase 2 (2017)• Participatory group workshopsPhase 3 (2016-17, PhD student)• Policy-focused interviews Phase 4 (2018)• Policy workshops

Cash transfers in the villages

Cash transfers in NiheloMtukula pakhomo • 5 households • Received 3 times in 2015• Appears to be targeted at elderly

(women) living with one or more young children, plus a household with a high dependency ratio (2 adults and 7 children)

Cadecom (WFP/WB-funded)• 5 houeholds • Received Dec, Jan, Feb• Targetting is much less clear (to

us and to community). Some are elderly, others appear to be able-bodied adults with 2-4 children, one is a close relative of the chief

Cash transfers in Ha RantelaliHouseholds receiving pension 8

Households receiving child grant 7

(Households receiving both pension and child grant) (1)

Households receiving public assistance 0

Targeting of child grants• Households with very few assets (jobs, fields and livestock) – all but one of the seven conform

• But: some have changed since 2014?• There are some very poor households that don’t receive them

• Selection process – some households were profiled; committee including chief, community councillor and some residents

• Criteria not very transparent

How do young adults experience social cash transfers?

1. Young adults are involved• In Ha Rantelali

• Three live in households that receive pensions• Six live in households that receive child grants

• Of these, five receive child grants on behalf of their own children

• In Nihelo• There are relatively few young adults in recipient

households• But, young people (inc children)

• Are collecting cash for their relatives• May be involved in discussing spending• May be given a share of the cash or food

2. SCTs can enhance self esteem• Positive impacts of child grants on young adults in Ha Rantelali

• Don’t need to beg for food• Can go out and look like other people – as can their children• Can feel able to participate in the community

• Focus is on their children• Feel constrained to buy uniforms (fear of Ministry inspections at

school)

• Some admit to spending some of the money on themselves

3. But SCTs also create stigma and tensions• Unfairness – many are poor but receive nothing• Lack of clarity/ transparency regarding criteria• Causes jealousies, strained relations, stigma –

“people talk about you”• Attitudes to pensions were overwhelmingly

positive• Child grants were much more controversial –

“Seoa holimo” = “money falling from the sky”

4. SCTs can bring livelihood opportunities• Income earning possibilities (Ha Rantelali)

• Collecting wood or doing washing for elderly• Joala (beer) brewing• (But most income is spent in stores in

Marakabei)

• Young adults may benefit even if their households don’t receive the grants

5. There’s little evidence of investment in / by young adults• Little evidence yet in Nihelo of any substantial investment in young

people, though they may be relieved of some obligations• Access to loans (Ha Rantelali)

• Mainly elderly to elderly• Also from those with child grants:

“They can’t refuse us”

• Removal of responsibility• For elderly• For very vulnerable households

Reworking social relations

Targeting: the individual, the household and the community• Pensions – target individuals• Malawi’s SCTs – target households (with child-focused element)• Child grants – target children (through households)

• But household isn’t bounded and isolated from others• Decision making and spending are distributed across individuals, households

and wider families• In matrilineal Malawian families, for instance, people have obligations that

extend beyond the nuclear family household, e.g. as uncles

Reconfiguring the household• In Nihelo, children are moved

between households to capture SCTs

• More are living with grandparents since 2007

• Some are even shared across more than one household

• Children are a valued commodity in this landscape

Autonomy and inclusion: changing households (Ha Rantelali)• Pensions – perceived as appropriate as

elderly can’t work and need to be independent

• Child grants – perceived as going to people (parents) who are young and strong and should have to work for their income

• So children are integral to the household; elderly are not so integral

• Are pensions contributing to nuclearisation of households?

Example: Sechaba’s grandmother• Sechaba’s grandmother is a 91-year-old widow and receives a pension

• When we were profiling the households we were told that her household remained independent, although Sechaba’s father claimed he was head to his own and his mother’s household, as he now made decisions for her. Subsequently, we were told they eat from the same pot, and both households use the grandmother’s kitchen.

• Nkhono insisted her pension was her own – and she wanted to use it to pay for another granddaughter’s education – but that she also bought groceries for the two connected households. She sent her brother-in-law to collect the pension each month

• Sechaba’s father felt he wasn’t trusted with the money and acknowledged it caused tensions

• Sechaba’s mother said that Nkhono saw contributions to her household as loans – failing to acknowledge that she was herself eating with them and using the groceries

Conclusion• A relational approach to understanding the impacts of cash transfers

is crucial• Young adults’ opportunities and responsibilities are shaped by their

relationships with others • Children, too, experience poverty through

relationships with others• SCTs impact on these relationships in

ways that require further investigation