Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, says "transfers show clear immediate benefits, including reduced hunger and raised incomes [for some of the most impoverished and vulnerable people in developing countries]."
How many aid projects can we say that for?
Social protection gets 4.5% of DFID's bilateral aid budget.
More at the Guardian and the full report here.
4 comments:
Interesting report - and I work for NAO and support their work - but I am also an academic who focuses on rigorous evidence, and NAO audits are not the same thing. They are a particular type of programme evaluation assessing the value of money of UK national government spending - they aren't the best impact evaluation out there. If you want more generalisable evidence, do look at the systematic review evidence and other relevant rigorous research in this area.
Absolutely, and there is plenty of rigorous research too, but it is great to get NAO approval and possibly reach a new audience.
"... the department's programmes are generally set with reference to the cost of average household food needs, without analysis as to how far different payment levels might offer better benefits relative to cost," said the NAO. "Increasing transfer values may be worthwhile if they have transformative effects on poverty..."
Flippin eck, when do you ever see an auditor say that maybe you should spend *more* more money..?
Lee,do note that some of the programmes they speak most warmly about (like Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme) are transfers in-kind....
Post a Comment