Child Poverty Research Day: Nicola Ansell Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. 18th November 2016

1. Social cash transfers, generational
relations and youth poverty
trajectories in rural Lesotho and
Malawi: preliminary findings
Nicola Ansell
Brunel University London

2. 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

3. Background to the research

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. The research: settings and
methods

9. 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

10. Setting 1: Malawi SCTs
Programme 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
nationally
Identified 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
Development
Funding: Global Fund
(2007-12), German
Government, Irish Aid,
EU, World Bank
Technical support:
UNICEF Malawi

11. Setting 1: Malawi field site
Nihelo
•Thyolo
District
•20 mins
walk from
Chimaliro
•14km
from main
Blantyre
road

12. Setting 2: Lesotho SCTs
Programme Target population Disbursement Starting year Scale Organisations
involved
Old Age Pension Individuals aged
over 70, except
those already
receiving a
government pension
M350 a month 2004
80,000
beneficiaries (77%
of those eligible)
1.6% of GDP Administration:
Ministry of Finance
Funding: 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
Development
Funding: EU and
(from 2009) Lesotho
Government
Technical support:
UNICEF Lesotho
Public Assistance Extremely poor
individuals (low
awareness)
M250 a month 1988 18,000 Admin: Ministry of
Social Development
Funder: Government

13. Setting 2: Lesotho field site
• Mountain village
• Located in Maseru District
• Two hours’ walk from Marakabei
• 7km from Thaba
-Tseka road
Ha Rantelali

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

15. Cash transfers in the villages

16. Cash transfers in Nihelo
Mtukula 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

17. Cash transfers in Ha Rantelali
Households 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

18. How do young adults experience
social cash transfers?

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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”

22. 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

23. 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

24. Reworking social relations

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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?

28. 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

29. 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