Search

Highlights • Cash transfers increase farm production by 33.5 percent. • None of these impacts are channelled through transfer-induced changes in farm labour. • In fact, cash transfers have no significant impact on family labour supply or on demand for hired labour. • This implies that the productive impacts of cash transfers flow through other channels, different from the labour one. Abstract This paper has the double aim to study whether unconditional cash transfers have an impact on farm production and to look into the causal mechanisms through which government transfers produce productive impacts. We use mediation analysis to identify the total effect of transfers on farm production and to isolate the influence of the labour channel from other transmission channels. In particular, we analyze whether changes in farm production are caused by transfer-induced changes in the use of farm labour – either by reallocating family labour between off- and on-farm work or by changes in the demand for hired labour – or if other transmission channels are at work. We find that cash transfers have a sizable impact on farm production but they do not lead to increased use of family or hired labour on the farm, which implies that the productive impacts of cash transfers flow through other channels, different from the labour one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Education emerged as a nearly uncontested development strategy to tackle several forms of social, political, economic and geographic inequalities in low- and middle-income countries. When it comes to the case of Uganda, the country represents a striking paradox. Significant investments and policy reforms in education (such as Universal Primary and Secondary Education) since 1997, did not translate into the expected results with regards to poverty reduction through human capital investment. Progress in poverty alleviation is not only stagnant but the role of education therein can be described as ‘modest’ at best. Against this backdrop, this article assesses the following research question: Why did Uganda’s investments and policy reforms in education not uplift the poor? In examining the issue, this article introduces a theoretical framework that contrasts assimilative with transformative approaches in poverty alleviation through education. A rigorous review of Uganda’s education sector plans revealed that current strategies to reduce poverty revolve around a strong assimilation-based development agenda, thereby focusing on three main areas of intervention: (a) increased access to education and retention; (b) improved quality of education; and (c) employment generation through education. The article finds that these assimilative approaches do not have an impact on the political, economic and social structures that cause poverty in the first place. Hence, it concludes that assimilative models in education are highly dependent on transformative approaches. Concretely, change cannot emerge only at the very grassroots level, i.e. through educating society at large, but also has to arise from the systemic level, i.e. government institutions at the local, national and global levels. Methodologically, the analysis draws on qualitative data that was collected in the course of two extensive field research stays in 2015 and 2017. In addition, quantitative data in the form of statistical abstracts inform the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on an analysis of water access and supply in Cape Town (South Africa) and Accra (Ghana), we illustrate that neoliberal and human right to water-oriented transformations co-constitute each other discursively, practically, and in policy implementation. Focusing on the transfer of policies and experiences (particularly conjoined demand management-free basic water programs and related social contestation), we provide examples of how neoliberal logics and human right to water principles intersect in evolving hybrid regulatory landscapes, which are characterized by contradiction. The human right to water makes a difference by influencing the drafting and implementation of water-related policies that affect to the lives of poor and vulnerable populations. Yet this process unfolds unevenly, as human right to water principles and practices are contextually applied, often alongside neoliberalizing policy instruments within evolving regulatory landscapes. Our analysis reveals the uneven effects of policy experimentation, transfer, and adaptation. The analysis shows that the principle of the human right to water affects the transformation of policy options circulating in the water sector, but it does so in relation to the institutional histories and policy options associated with uneven patterns of variegated neoliberalization in the water sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]