000			03525cam a22003975i 4500
001			210910
003			US-djbf
005			20210811113841.0
006			m d
007			cr cn|||||||||
008			020129s2016 dcu o i00 0 eng
020			_a9781464809118 _c29.95 USD
020			_z9781464809101
035			_a(The World Bank)210910
040			_aDJBF _beng _cDJBF _erda
100	1		_aGentilini, Ugo. _924900
245	1	4	_aThe Other Side of the Coin : _bThe Comparative Evidence of Cash and in-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Situations? / _cUgo Gentilini.
264		1	_aWashington, D.C. : _bThe World Bank, _c2016.
300			_a1 online resource (66 pages)
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_adata file _2rda
490	1		_aWorld Bank Studies
520	3		_aOver 60 million people are currently displaced due to conflict or violence, and about 140 million are exposed to natural disasters. As part of humanitarian responses to those affected populations, growing attention is paid to cash transfers as a form of assistance. Cash is being strongly advocated by several actors, and for good reasons: they have the potential to provide choice, empower people, and spark economic multipliers. But what is their comparative performance relative to in-kind transfers? Are there objectives for which there are particular evidence gaps? And what should be considered when choosing between those forms of assistance? This paper is one of the first reviews examining those questions across humanitarian sectors and in relation to multiple forms of assistance, including cash, vouchers, and in-kind assistance (food and non-food). These were assessed based on solid impact evaluations and through the lens of food security, nutrition, livelihoods, health, education, and shelter objectives. The paper finds that there is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. This ranges from areas where evidence is substantial (i.e., food security) to realms where it is limited (i.e., nutrition) or where not a single comparative evaluation was available (i.e., health, education, and shelter). Where evidence is substantial, data shows that the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average. In terms of costs, cash is generally more efficient to delivery. However, overall costs would hinge on the scale of interventions, crisis context, procurement practices, and a range of 'hidden costs'. In other words, the appropriateness of transfers cannot be predetermined and should emerge from response analysis that considers program objectives, the level of market functionality, predicted cost-effectiveness, implementation capacity, the management of key risks such as on protection and gender, political economy, beneficiary preferences, and resource availability. Finally, it seems possible (and necessary) to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with solid research to inform decision-making, especially on dimensions beyond food security.
588			_aDescription based on print version record.
650		4	_aCash transfers _924901
650		4	_aCosts _924902
650		4	_aDelivery _924903
650		4	_aDisasters _924904
650		4	_aFood aid _924905
700	1		_aGentilini, Ugo. _924900
776	0	8	_aPrint Version: _z9781464809101
830		0	_aWorld Bank e-Library. _924906
856	4	0	_uhttp://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-1-4648-0910-1
999			_c4994 _d4994