Abstract
Discussions regarding the merits of cash and food transfers focus on their relative impacts. Much less is known about their relative costs. Activity-based costing methods are applied to interventions situated in Ecuador, Niger, Uganda, and Yemen, finding that the per-transfer cost of providing cash is always less than food. Given the budget for these interventions, an additional 44,769 people could have received assistance at no additional cost had cash been provided instead of food. This suggests a significant opportunity cost in terms of reduced coverage when higher cost transfer modalities are used. Decisions to use cash or food transfers should consider both impacts and costs.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
