Towards ethical good practice in cash transfer trials and their evaluation.

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, cash transfers have become increasingly widespread within international development and global social policy. Often, their roll out is preceded by a trial or pilot phase aiming to check feasibility and effectiveness. These pilots can involve thousands of people. However, there is limited discussion within the literature (and even less in practice) of how and whether cash transfer trials and the research that they involve can respect ethical standards. This paper represents an initial step towards filling that gap. It does so by reviewing the latest literature pertaining to the ethics of cash transfers and social experimentation. It concludes by advancing a series of proposals that could support cash transfer trials to take place with greater respect for research ethics norms and in the best interests of participants. The paper’s findings have relevance for policymakers and development practitioners working with cash transfers and also for the smaller cognate world of Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) piloting.

Do social protection programmes affect the burden of breast and cervical cancer? A systematic review

“…When programs are not universal, the definition of who will receive the benefits can lead to distortions in communities with characteristics of generalised poverty, drawing a line between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries that may not make sense to the target populations. Another issue is the duration of the programs and how to prepare populations to exit them, especially when there is a cash transfer and financial support ceases [9] . Conditional cash transfer programmes – when compliance with certain actions usually related to health or education are required to receive benefits – or even without conditionalities have had a positive effect on nutrition, health, education and cognitive development [10] , [11] .…”

“…They have been considered paternalistic, inefficient, stigmatising and barriers to granting the benefit, among other problems. Furthermore, it tends to impose a burden of obligations on women, which results in the use of a large part of their time to comply with them [9] , [10] , [12] . Despite this debate, the potential socioeconomic benefits of SPPs justified their adoption.…”