Abstract
AbstractImpact evaluations show that social fund resources are pro‐poor, and that targeting has improved over time. Despite the leakage which occurs to better‐off areas and households, social fund performance compares favorably with other public programmes. Investments largely reflect community needs and priorities and have increased access to, quality and utilization of basic social infrastructure. These benefits have generally translated into improvements in the health and education status of households, though specific impacts vary by country, region, and sector. The vast majority of facilities are operating several years after completion, but long‐term sustainability of water systems is particularly problematic given insufficient cost recovery. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 call
