Bernd Schubert (Comment 27 October 2009) is remarkably sanguine about the problem of leapfrogging. The general assertion that “There is disappointment among those households that did not get in because of the 10 percent cut-off point and there is some envy. But there is no evidence of serious problems” is as far as we know contrary to the general experience of welfare schemes, where it has been found that people accept poverty targeting as long as the targeting is accurate and the amounts given are such that they do not allow recipients to leapfrog poor non-recipients. In the UK this is a live day to day political issue and in an earlier Wahenga comment (15 July 2009) Cate Gorical made the point that “governments are ready to commit far greater resources to universal and categorical programmes (because they are politically acceptable and perceived as fair), than to narrow, poverty-targeted schemes (which are not).”

However the one documented case we have found from Africa is from Kalomo [1] which does tend to support Bernd Shubert‘s case. A possible explanation for this might be, as we found in our studies in Mchinji and Mlomba, that the cash transfers did not actually reach the poorest groups. If the cash transfers were actually distributed across the income distribution, rather than as intended to the poorest, it might be expected that people would be more accommodating, and to the extent that transfers were redistributed between households e.g. between kin, even more so.

Bernd Shubert also uses the examples of social pensions (“Did anybody ever worry about the ‘leapfrogging’ effects of social pensions?”), the impact of the Grameen bank in Bangladesh (“When the Grameen Bank lifted a large number of very poor households (but not all very poor households) out of ultra poverty, it definitely reshuffled the income distribution in Bangladesh “) and the views of Chiefs and politicians who are “eager to have the scheme extended to their areas.” The comparisons are specious. The criterion on which social pensions are allocated is unambiguous and anyone who reaches the qualifying age can expect to become a recipient; the Grameen Bank is rightly lauded (although the main impact on poverty in Bangladesh has been through huge changes in agriculture and employment) but this is not welfare but loans: any impact on poverty arises from the initiative of the recipient. And in all countries politicians do tend to like programmes for which they can claim credit.

John Seaman and Celia Petty

Evidence for Development

______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]Katherina Wietler. 2007. The impact of Social Cash Transfers on informal safety nets in Kalomo District, Zambia. A qualitative study. Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS)/ Germen Technical Cooperation (GTZ)