Impacts of urban safety net on income, food expenditure and intake capacity of poor households in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia, 2021

Abstract

Although measures taken to address food insecurity and income inequality showed notable outcomes, they have continued to be major global issues mainly in urban areas of developing countries. To relieve these problems, Ethiopia started an urban safety net program in Addis Ababa city in 2017. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impacts and progress of the urban safety net program, mainly its cash transfers (CTs) on income, consumption, and food security of poor households using indicators based on elements of a theory of change and Engel's coefficient. It assessed whether the program was significant (or not) to program beneficiaries compared to situations before the start of the program, non-beneficiaries, and beneficiaries' sex. A total of 560 sample households were selected through a multi-stage sampling for household surveys. Comparative approaches, paired and independent t-tests, and linear regression were used to analyze the data. Results revealed that the CTs had a satisfactory targeting accuracy of the poor and produced positive effects on monthly income, savings, food expenditures and intake, and seed money for a business start. Since financial transfers account for a larger proportion of the income of households, current income becomes significantly bigger compared to income during the pre-program periods and non-beneficiary households. Food access, expenditure, and savings capacities of beneficiaries in post-CT became better than in pre-CT along with better food access and diet intake two to three a day than non-beneficiaries. Besides, coverage and benefits were statistically significant for women compared to men. The implementation of the urban safety net program is good in its positive impacts and progress toward nutrition and food security of poor households as a result of an increase in their income, food expenditure, intake, and access. This implies policymakers could potentially expect to see improvements in nutrition and food security, especially when targeting urban poor and female-headed households. However, delays in payments and work equipment, declining size and value of payments, and weak supplementary services are the program's shortcomings. Policy implications to improve the size of transfers, emergency aids, timely payments and equipment provisions, and interventions like regular business training, supervision, and guidance are recommended.

The impact of safety net programs on household asset building in Ethiopia: Propensity scope matching model results

“…Second, from the PSM results, the PSNP had impact on prevention of household assets from depleting. This finding was consistent with the empirical evidence documented by Gashaw and Seid (2019), Zerhun (2020), Abdulhakim et al (2022) and Tareke (2022). The PSNP intervention had significantly increased livestock holding, entitlement to cash/food vouchers, farm income and increased spending on house refurbishment.…”

“…At the community level, beneficiaries are incentivized through cash and food aid to participate in environmental rehabilitation on both communal and private lands (Del-Ninno et al, 2004;Emerta et al, 2020;Fantu and Minten, 2023;Addisalem et al, 2023). At the household level, the program provides cash, farm inputs, livestock replenishment, etc., aiming to reduce asset depletion and support rapid recovery after shocks (Zerhun, 2020;Tareke, 2022).…”

“…HAB interventions, in the context of recurrent shocks, require support in the domains of production, exchange, and transfer/aid due to contextual and institutional factors (Girmay, 2020). PSNP's asset-building support expands household entitlements to a diverse set of assets (both communal and private), helping address supply constraints during shocks (Tirame, 2008;Gashaw and Seid, 2019;Zerhun, 2020;Tareke, 2022). Studying assetbuilding interventions and their impact at the household level is argued to generate useful policy and theoretical information regarding entitlements to critical assets during shocks (Bonfiglioli, 2009;Hoddinott, 1999a, b;Birhanu, 2009;Raisin, 2003).…”

“…Initiated in 2005, the PSNP aimed to shift Ethiopia's system dominated by emergency humanitarian aid to a productive and protective safety net system through a multi-year resourcing framework (FAO, 2009;Tirame, 2008;Guush et al, 2017). The PSNP, through collective engagement and cooperation of development actors, addresses immediate human needs while supporting the rural transformation process, preventing long-term consequences of consumption shortages and asset depletion, encouraging production and investment, and promoting market development by increasing household purchasing power (Guo et al, 2004;Abdulhakim et al, 2022;Tareke, 2022). It targets chronically poor smallholder households (Sharp et al, 2006;Devereux and Guenther, 2007;Gashaw and Seid Nuru, 2019), saving assets and lives of millions in drought-prone areas.…”

“…Despite government efforts and aid inflow from global actors focusing on household asset-building and environmental rehabilitation in drought-affected areas, the problem persists, compounded by the unfolding and dynamic impacts of climate change (Birhanu, 2009;Okocha and Akpe, 2022;McLaughlin et al, 2023). In the face of resource scarcity and the increasing impact of droughts and climate change, households in Ethiopia deplete 72 to 75% of their assets and struggle to recover (UN, 2010;Gashaw and Seid, 2019;Zerhun, 2020;Tareke, 2022).…”