Assessing the long-term impact of a social protection programme in Bangladesh

The results of a DEEP-funded study that assessed the long-term impact of a social protection programme implemented in Bangladesh between 2012 and 2014 should help to inform debates about how to generate reductions in poverty in the most effective way. John Hoddinott, H. E. Babcock Professor of Food and Nutrition Economics and Policy at Cornell University, explains more.

A substantial body of evidence shows that social assistance, specifically the receipt of cash or food transfers, has positive impacts on household consumption and reduces poverty. Less is known about whether these beneficial impacts are enhanced through the inclusion of complementary programming; whether these beneficial impacts persist after the intervention ends; and whether the magnitudes of these impacts are sufficient to lift social assistance recipients permanently out of poverty.

A recent study, funded by DEEP, brings new evidence to these topics by assessing the long-term impact of the Transfer Modality Research Initiative (TMRI), a randomized control trial carried out between 2012 and 2014 in two poor regions of rural Bangladesh – Rangpur in the North and Khulna and Barisal in the South. TMRI participants were mothers of children under the age of two, residing in households experiencing poverty, located in poor communities. There were multiple intervention groups (or ‘treatment arms’) including: monthly cash transfers of 1,500 Bangladeshi Taka (approximately US$ 19); a monthly food ration (rice, pulses, and micronutrient-fortified cooking oil) equal in the value to the cash transfer; cash combined with nutrition behaviour change communication (Cash+BCC); food combined with nutrition behaviour change communication; and a control group. The nutrition behaviour change communication activities were intensive. They included weekly group training led by community nutrition workers; twice-a-month home visits by community nutrition workers; and monthly group meetings between programme staff and influential community leaders.

Uniquely, TMRI study participants were re-interviewed after the intervention ended, in 2018 and 2022. In each round, data were collected that enabled us to assess the post-programme impact of the TMRI on household consumption and on poverty.

We found that, in both the North and South, food-only transfers have no permanent (i.e. no post-programme) impact. Four and eight years after the TMRI ended, levels of consumption, and of poverty, in these households are indistinguishable from the control group. Meanwhile, post-programme impacts of cash-only transfers are location specific; they have small but sustained impacts in 2018 and 2022 in the North but do not have sustained impacts on consumption or poverty in the South.

By contrast, the Cash+BCC treatment carried out in the North had large, sustained impacts on consumption – increasing it (relative to the control group) by 26.7, 8.7 and 12.8 per cent in 2014, 2018 and 2022 respectively. Consequently, in the Cash+BCC treatment arm, 76.2 per cent of households living in poverty at baseline had escaped poverty by 2022. The remaining households benefitted from the TMRI treatments, but did not escape poverty. They had extremely low levels of consumption at study baseline, and while they experienced substantial consumption growth over time, it was not enough to move them out of poverty. By contrast, while 51.0 per cent of poor baseline households in the control group had moved out of poverty by 2022, half of these had only done so between 2018 and 2022.

These results will be able to inform debates about how best to generate sustained increases in consumption and reductions in poverty. Consistent with a growing body of evidence, our results indicate that a ‘cash plus’ approach (here cash twinned with nutrition behaviour change communication activities) generate faster and sustained escapes from poverty relative to the control group. While transfer-only treatment arms give households a head start on poverty reduction, they do not convey longer-term benefits relative to the control group. The results also contribute to debates about the most cost-effective form of cash plus interventions. Here, the strongest evidence on poverty reduction comes from ‘big push’ cash plus approaches, such as those combining assets, training, and other components. These approaches can be expensive, with costs per beneficiary typically lying between $1,000 and $2,000, but the cost of the TMRI Cash+BCC treatment arm was approximately $580 over two years ($480 in transfer costs and $100 for the BCC), suggesting that it may be possible to generate sustained reductions in poverty at lower cost.

The working paper is available here.

Image credits: John Hoddinott