Needy couples got cash and a spending plan. Results were good -- and bad

A Liberian cash-aid experiment found that couples who mapped out spending together did better financially than those who only received money. It also produced a serious warning for a smaller, vulnerable group: among couples with a history of violence, joint planning was associated with more intimate-partner violence. The study raises a difficult question for anti-poverty programs: how to preserve gains from shared decision-making without adding risks in homes already affected by conflict.

Since the early 2000s, cash transfers have become a widely used response to extreme poverty. A large payment can enable families to buy food, pay school costs, repair a house, invest in livestock or another activity, or build a small business. Earlier studies have found that cash aid can help households cover everyday needs and create income. In Liberia, recipients commonly receive payments through mobile phones rather than at a physical distribution site.

Liberia has reported success with its existing cash programs. A household in need normally receives about $250 a year, a sum with substantial local value. The money is generally entrusted to one household member, most often a woman. Officials say that approach is meant to expand women’s economic control in a country with pronounced gender inequality, harassment and discrimination against women, and limited employment opportunities. Men traditionally manage family money in many households, sometimes withholding funds needed for items such as food or soap. Some men, however, said the arrangement excluded them.

That concern led the Liberian government, GiveDirectly and the World Bank to test a different design. In 2022, more than 2,300 households in the counties of Maryland and Bomi received $750 in four installments. Each partner got the same amount and the same voice in its use. The total exceeded twice the size of a typical household cash payment because both partners received equal disbursements. The project’s goals were to boost income and lessen household tension.

The second goal carried particular urgency. Nearly 35% of Liberian women say they have experienced intimate-partner violence, compared with a 27% global average. Half of the participant households were offered a joint financial-planning session lasting about 45 minutes. Couples were asked to agree on how they would use the money, whether for food, repairs, education, planting, farming or a business. The aim was to make the payment part of a mutual spending decision, rather than two unconnected individual awards.

Low literacy in rural Liberia shaped the planning exercise. Researchers supplied a poster showing a happy family and room to record four principal spending priorities. Couples who could not readily write could use stickers: books signaled education, while images of medical tools signaled health care. The poster stayed with the couple and could be displayed in their home, leaving a visible reminder of the plan they had reached together.

Researchers tracked the households for a year after the money arrived. The families that received the planning component were economically better off than those given only cash. Christian, a participant identified only by her first name, works on a farm; her husband collects tree latex used for rubber. They agreed to focus on education, food and housing repairs. Christian paid fees for their five children’s schooling, bought rice and reduced debt. Her husband purchased solar light bulbs and cement to mend their leaking roof.

The team also recorded whether couples had experienced partner violence before the payments, then revisited the issue a year later. Most participants reported no incidents. But couples deemed at high risk because of past violence had a different result. Their income increased, yet those who also completed the planning session reported more intimate-partner violence. This increase was not reported for the high-risk group that received the cash without joint planning.

Researchers and a UNICEF impact-evaluation specialist who was not involved in the study offered possible, not definitive, explanations. A spending plan made in public between partners could fuel confrontation when one person deviates and the other objects. Planning might also redistribute decision-making power, including by giving women more say over money; either the immediate shift in agency or later economic changes could trigger abuse in already volatile relationships. Results released in July have prompted hopes for a funded follow-up with changes intended to prevent conflict while retaining the financial benefits.

Source: NPR World