A hundred years ago, European politicians decided that it was more beneficial – not just for the individual but also for the nation - to assist the poor through pensions and other types of cash transfers than for them to stay poor. Today, according to the ILO, European countries spend between a third and half of public expenditure on social welfare measures including cash transfers such as old age pensions, disability grants and child benefits.

A hundred years later, the value of social welfare - and regular cash transfers in particular - is similarly under debate in Africa. But whereas European countries based their decisions primarily on theory and conviction, the current debate demands rigorous evidence on the impact of such measures not just on reducing poverty but also on more ambitious objectives such as economic growth. [It seems somewhat ironic that the very countries which pioneered social welfare programmes, and which evidently have long recognised their value, are amongst the most vocal in demanding evidence of impact.]

The impact of providing the poor and vulnerable with regular pensions or grants – as opposed to food aid, a voucher, or agricultural subsidies – may not be dramatic in the immediate, but is far-reaching in the long-term. It starts at the micro level with the beneficiary and spreads out to the household, the community and the local economy, and eventually to the country as a whole.

However, one of the difficulties in providing evidence of the macro level impact of cash transfers (on such objectives as economic growth) is the scarcity of comprehensive scaled-up programmes, especially in Africa.

This paper provides evidence for the impacts of cash transfers at different levels (from the individual beneficiary, through the household and community, to national level), drawing on findings from the Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme’s (RHVP) regional evidence-building agenda (REBA) in southern Africa, as well as from elsewhere in Africa.