The limits to cash‐plus provision in protracted crises

Rachel Sabates‐Wheeler, Jeremy Lind and Carolina Holland‐Szyp

Development Policy Review, 2025, vol. 43, issue 4

Abstract: Motivation Cash‐plus programmes have succeeded in places where different provisions (e.g., health, education, nutrition) are able to complement each other while augmenting a regular cash transfer payment. The institutional capacity to deliver an integrated support package has marked the effective functioning of these programmes. However, in contexts of conflict and protracted crisis and the associated disruptions of infrastructure damage, insecurity, distrust, and violence, the necessary institutional scaffolding for a well‐functioning cash‐plus programme becomes unstable and may collapse altogether. Despite this, cash‐plus programmes continue to be implemented in these contexts. Purpose We assess whether cash‐plus programmes are designed and delivered to reduce vulnerability and promote livelihoods in protracted crises, and if their outcomes resonate with their objectives. Approach and Methods We develop a multidimensional indicator of protracted crisis, incorporating conflict, displacement, and climate change vulnerability, and map this against the strength of national social protection systems. We review 97 cash‐plus programmes in 16 countries, examining design features, objectives, and outcomes. Findings The review exposes the weakness in relying on the usual small‐lift aims of cash‐plus interventions (such as the provision of seeds or poultry, or basic training in business) in contexts where household‐level barriers to improving livelihoods are dwarfed by macro‐level structural, political, and social ruptures. The evidence demonstrates that most cash‐plus interventions are not designed or delivered in ways suitable for crises. Policy Implications Household‐level objectives will be stymied by institutional and political disruptions; therefore, programmes must also seek to help reshape the context in which people live. During active conflict (as compared to intermittent violence), cash‐plus may simply be impossible: it may be better to focus on providing for basic needs, such as through humanitarian aid.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.70020

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:devpol:v:43:y:2025:i:4:n:e70020

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0950-6764

Access Statistics for this article

Development Policy Review is currently edited by David Booth

More articles in Development Policy Review from Overseas Development Institute Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().