You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Cash Transfers’ tag.
> Posted by Joshua Goldstein aka Mr. Provocative
Today, in 2070, with advanced robotization of jobs in all sectors, “work” has become a minority pursuit and financial inclusion is mostly understood to mean government cash transfers. Other financial products like loans are anachronisms of a bygone era. The government knows that such transfer programs like “unemployment benefits” are the only way to keep the anemic engine of demand alive for the goods and services that are now produced by a smaller and smaller sliver of the population who live in Byzantine splendor far removed from the humdrum circumstances of the vast majority. (Indeed in 2070, “unemployment” is a forgotten term from an era when “work” was a defining feature of life.) And the lack of work extends to what is today called “knowledge economy” occupations as well as almost every other category of white and blue collar work. Now, all humans enjoy a pension plan that goes into effect at birth and is more than enough to meet basic consumption needs. The benefit ends only with death by lethal injection at the mandatory termination age of 120.
Am I painting a scenario that seems wildly implausible? Perhaps.
> Posted by Jeffrey Riecke, Communications Associate, CFI
Somalia is facing another potentially life-threatening drought. Aid agencies in East Africa indicate a strong possibility that drought in 2014 will be as severe as that of 2011, which resulted in the deaths of about 260,000 people. But this year, Somalia’s people may not be able to count on a trusted lifeline in times of drought: remittances from the United States and other countries. Remittances from the United States to Somalia are responsible for roughly $214 million annually, but increasingly, U.S. regulators are imposing a string of service provider shutdowns. If these services are constrained, the effects of a drought on Somalis will likely be exacerbated.
The reason for this challenge for cash flows between friends and family across the Somali diaspora? Regulatory issues centering on the risk of these remittances funding potentially dangerous individuals. In 2011, for example, two Somali-Americans from Rochester, Minnesota were convicted of supplying cash to the terrorist group al-Shabab. Such incidents prompt often sweeping regulatory action and/or preemptive actions by banks to avoid transactions involving Somalia.
> Posted by Center Staff
This edition of Top Picks features a post that offers a fresh framework for examining savings groups, a post that synthesizes recent research on payments in South Asia, and a post on the relative effectiveness of aid approaches.
Steering the conversation on savings groups towards foundational concerns, or at least towards more interesting matters than the oft-trodden territory of model and methodology specifics (e.g. passbooks versus ledgers), Paul Rippey in a new Savings Revolution blog post offers six questions for potential consideration. Here’s a portion of one of the questions: “How big is the gap within the program between what is said and written, and what is done? Said another way, the casual disrespect and bending of procedures makes management incredibly difficult and inefficient.”
In South Asia, domestic remittances are conducted much more than international remittances, and they’re carried out mostly in cash through informal channels. These are two of the big findings from a recent Gates Foundation survey, highlighted by Jake Kendall in a new Next Billion blog post. The post provides a brief overview of the importance of digital payment options for the poor and shares the big findings from the Gates survey, which interviewed individuals in South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) and Indonesia on their experience with payments. Another key finding from the survey, demonstrating a big potential market for digital payments, was that the majority of those interviewed – who represent the majority of a population of 1.9 billion adults – reported having sent, brought, or received a domestic or international remittance in the past 12 months.
What’s better?: an organization giving money to the poor with no strings attached, or an organization giving the poor productive assets which require higher expenditures that hinder the organization’s scope? That’s one of the big questions presented in a new post, “Cash or Cows?“, on the Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) blog. It’s a question getting a lot of attention recently thanks to the increasingly talked-about organization GiveDirectly that gives money directly to the poor in Kenya, with no associated conditions, via M-PESA mobile money transfers. To put this approach to the test, GiveDirectly agreed to allow IPA to conduct a public evaluation (which is currently underway) of the effectiveness of their work. In addition to exploring this question, the post takes an additional half-step of comparing the net impact of conditional and unconditional cash transfers, drawing on IPA research.
Image credit: Ianf