IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/inwopa/inwopa785.html

Unconditional Government Social Cash Transfer in Africa Does not Increase Fertility

Author

Listed:
  • Tia Palermo
  • Sudhanshu Handa
  • Amber Peterman
  • Leah Prencipe
  • David Seidenfeld
  • UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

Abstract

In Africa, one of the key barriers to the scale-up of unconditional cash transfer programmes is the notion held by politicians, and even the general public, that such programmes will induce the poor to have more children. The hard evidence on this question is scanty. The current study uses evaluation data from the Zambian Child Grant Programme (CGP), a large-scale UCT targeted to households with a child under the age of five at programme initiation and evaluates the impact of transfers on fertility and child-fostering decisions. The overall goal of the CGP is to reduce extreme poverty and break the intergenerational transmission of poverty. The results contribute to the small literature that rigorously documents the fertility impacts of unconditional cash transfer programmes in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Tia Palermo & Sudhanshu Handa & Amber Peterman & Leah Prencipe & David Seidenfeld & UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2015. "Unconditional Government Social Cash Transfer in Africa Does not Increase Fertility," Papers inwopa785, Innocenti Working Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucf:inwopa:inwopa785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sonia Laszlo & Muhammad Farhan Majid & Laëtitia Renée, 2024. "Conditional cash transfers and women's reproductive choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), February.
    2. Sakata, Kei & McKenzie, C. R., 2022. "Does the expectation of having to look after parents in the future affect current fertility?," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 283-311, September.
    3. Santiago Garganta & Leonardo Gasparini & Mariana Marchionni & Mariano Tappatá, 2017. "The Effect of Cash Transfers on Fertility: Evidence from Argentina," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(1), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Nasir Iqbal & Saima Nawaz & Siew Ling Yew, 2024. "Do unconditional cash transfers increase fertility? Lessons from a large‐scale program," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(1), pages 74-96, January.
    5. Jose Cuesta & Mario Negre & Ana Revenga & Maika Schmidt, 2018. "Tackling Income Inequality: What Works and Why?," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 26(1), pages 1-48, March.
    6. Donald, Aletheia Amalia & Goldstein, Markus & Koroknay-Palicz, Tricia & Sage, Mathilde, 2024. "The Fertility Impacts of Development Programs," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10848, The World Bank.
    7. Zohra S. Lassi & Sophie G. E. Kedzior & Wajeeha Tariq & Yamna Jadoon & Jai K. Das & Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, 2021. "Effects of preconception care and periconception interventions on maternal nutritional status and birth outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    8. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    9. Superti, Luiz Henrique, 2019. "Effects on Fertility of The Brazilian Cash Transfer Program: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Approach," MPRA Paper 104627, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2020.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucf:inwopa:inwopa785. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Patrizia Faustini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.