Samuel Njanji Dessertation

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SOCIAL CASH

TRANSFER PROGRAM AMONG ELDERLY HEADED HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF
THE AREA OF GROUP VILLAGE HEAD MANYUMBA T/A JUMA IN MULANJE
DISTRICT
SUBMITTED BY : SAMUEL NJANJI
REGISTRATION NUMBER : BSocDS/PT/2020/2782
A DESSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACAULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE-

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMNTS FOR
THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DEGREE IN DEVELOPMENT
STUDIES.
DECEMBER 2022.
SAMUEL NJANJI BSOCDS/PT/2020/2782
DECLARATION
I, Samuel Njanji, hereby declare that this dissertation entitled: An investigation of the socio-
economic impacts of social cash transfer program among elderly headed households in the
area of group village head Manyumba T/A Juma in Mulanje district is my original work and
that, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been submitted for similar purposes to this
university or any other university or institution of high learning. Where other people’s work
was used acknowledgements have been duly made.
Signature Date
Candidate’s Name: Samuel Njanji
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
i
I declare that this dissertation is from the candidate’s work and effort. Where he has used
other sources of information, it has been acknowledged. This dissertation is submitted with
my approval.
Signature Date
Supervisor’s Name: Dr J Mangulama
______________________________ ___________
Signature Date
Head of Department’s Name: Mrs A Nkhonjera
_____________________________ ___________
Signature Date
Dean of Social Science’s Name: Mr A Mtuta
DEDICATION
I dedicate my work to my brother Wiggen Njanji, my mom and dad, Mr and Mrs Njanji and
my entire family for their love, care, guidance wisdom and unwavering support throughout
my studies.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My gratitude goes to my mom, dad, my elder brother Wiggen and all my siblings for the
moral and financial support rendered to me during my studies. God bless you all.
iii
I would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisor Dr Justin Mangulama for the tireless
support during my study. His patience, ideas and constructive criticisms helped me
throughout my research work. I greatly appreciate receiving timely guidance from him.
Many thanks to all my lectures at The Catholic University of Malawi, for the knowledge they
have imparted in me from the time I joined catholic university of Malawi. The knowledge
they imparted in me has directly and indirectly also contributed a lot to my research.
Let me thank all my classmates for Development studies who have always been a wonderful
team throughout my studies through various forms of academic assistance. May God bless
you all.
Above all, glory be to Jehovah for seeing me throughout my studies and his unconditional
love. My entire academic journey has been a success through his divine support.
iv
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to assess the socio-economic impacts of the social cash transfer
program among elderly headed households in the area of group village head Manyumba, T/A
Juma in Mulanje district. The study aimed at investigating the expenditure patterns of social
cash transfers and how that impacts the socio-economic status of the beneficiary households,
especially elderly headed households. A sample of 106 respondents was selected through
simple random sampling. SPSS was used for quantitative data analysis and thematic analysis
was used for qualitative data.
23% of the households were male headed while 77% were female headed. 56.6% of the
respondents never attended any formal education while 43.4% were primary school leavers.
All the respondents mentioned agriculture as one of their sources of Livelihood which is
mostly done for household food consumption. 35.8% of the respondents combine agriculture
and small-scale business as their sources of livelihood. 81.1% of the respondents make less
than K20,000 per month. 18.9% of the respondents make K20,000 to K30,000 in a month.
This money is used to buy basic needs such as food, clothing and paying for house rentals.
The least household receives K5,000 kwacha monthly from social cash transfer and the
highest earning household earns K11,000 monthly. However, most times the money is
received after every two months and sometimes quarterly. On average every household
receives K7,905.7 monthly. 50.9% of the respondents spend savings from cash money on
livestock farming as a business to supplement their other sources of livelihood. 94.3% of
them are engaged in goat rearing, 3.8% in pig rearing and 1.9% in cattle rearing. 15.1% of the
respondents have used the cash transfer money to maintain their houses and revamp their
roofs from being grass thatched to iron sheet fitted. 59.1% of the respondents who invested in
livestock could not keep their livestock for longer and sold them to cover their critical basic
needs such as food and clothing. After years of being beneficiaries, 17% of the beneficiaries
are now food secure while the remaining 83% spend their cash transfers to cover maize
harvest deficits.
The findings of this study indicate that the social cash transfer program highly slants towards
the basic needs approach to development and poverty reduction. The cash transfers have had
some positive impacts on improving the access to basic needs of the people such as food and
clothing. However, there is little improvement in the acquisition of income generating assets
as mostly the money is spent on consumption other than investing in economically productive
v
assets to improve their livelihoods. The money received is also too little for the beneficiaries
to venture into a sustainable business.
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
AIP Affordable Inputs Program
AU African Union
BOLSA Bureau of Labour and Social Affairs
CCC Community Care Coalitions
CSSC Community Social Support Committee
DFID Department for International Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GVH Group Village Head
HIV Human Immune Virus
MWK Malawian Kwacha
NSSP National Social Support Policy
SCTP Social Cash Transfer Programme
SCTPP Social Cash Transfer Pilot Programme
UNC University of North Carolina
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
VSL Village Savings and Loans
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Causal pathways by which cash transfers can improve household welfare
Figure 2: Age distribution of the respondents.
Figure 3: Marital status of the respondents
Figure 4: Percentage distribution of household dependents
Figure 5: Food consumption period
Figure 6: Level of engagement in piece works
Figure 7: Percentage expenditure on food
Figure 8: Expenditure in housing
Figure 9: Livestock investment
Figure 10: Crop production levels
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Monthly earning variations
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION....................................................................................................................................................I
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.......................................................................................................................II
DEDICATION.....................................................................................................................................................III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...................................................................................................................................IV
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................................V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................VII
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................................IX
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION......................................................................................................................2

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................3
1.3 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 Main objective.......................................................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Specific objectives.................................................................................................................................4
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................................................................................................4
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................6
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................................6

2.1.1 The basic needs approach to poverty reduction..................................................................................6
2.1.2 The capability approach to poverty reduction.....................................................................................7
2.2 GLOBAL TRENDS IN SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM........................................................................8
2.3 REGIONAL TRENDS OF SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM IN AFRICA.................................................9
2.3.1 Social Cash Transfer Program in Ethiopia.......................................................................................11
2.4 TRENDS OF SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER IN MALAWI...................................................................................12
2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................16
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN....................................................................................................................................16

3.2 STUDY POPULATION...................................................................................................................................16
3.3 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA......................................................................................................16
3.4 SAMPLE SIZE...............................................................................................................................................16
3.5 SAMPLING METHOD....................................................................................................................................17
3.6 DATA COLLECTION METHODS..................................................................................................................17
3.7 DATA ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................17
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.....................................................................................18
x
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION...................................................................................................................18

4.1.1Sex distribution.....................................................................................................................................18
4.1.2 Marital status......................................................................................................................................19
4.1.3 Family size...........................................................................................................................................19
4.1.4 Level of education...............................................................................................................................20
4.1.5 Sources of livelihood...........................................................................................................................21
4.2 EXPENDITURE PATTERNS OF CASH TRANSFERS........................................................................................24
4.2.1 Expenditure in food.............................................................................................................................25
4.2.2 Expenditure on clothes........................................................................................................................26
4.2.3 Expenditure in school materials..........................................................................................................27
4.2.4 Expenditure in Housing.......................................................................................................................27
4.3. LIVELIHOODS ACQUIRED THROUGH CASH TRANSFERS...........................................................................29
4.3.1 Livestock farming................................................................................................................................29
4.3.2 Crop production..................................................................................................................................30
4.3.3 Village Savings and Loans (VSLs) and Village banks........................................................................31
4.3.4 Small Scale Businesses........................................................................................................................32
4.4 IMPACTS OF CASH TRANSFERS ON FOOD SECURITY.................................................................................32
4.4.1 Impacts on farm harvest......................................................................................................................32
4.4.2 impacts on household food buying capacity.......................................................................................33
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................35
5.1 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................35
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................35
5.3 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................36
5.4 AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY........................................................................................................................37
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................38
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................41
APPENDIX A: BUDGET.......................................................................................................................................41
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT....................................................................................................................42
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS.................................................................................46
xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Malawi is a low-income, landlocked country in Southern Africa with a population estimated
at 19 million in 2022. The country is divided into 28 administrative districts. Over three
quarters (83.7 per cent) of Malawians live in rural areas, and 50.1 per cent of the total
population are female (National Statistical Office, 2021). The country is predominantly
young, with 45.1 per cent of its population being 14 years old or under, while 51.4 per cent of
the population are of working age (15–64 years old). Nearly two thirds (63.5 per cent) of the
people aged 15+ participate in the labour force (ILO, 2016).
Poverty and extreme poverty in Malawi, however, are not limited to unemployed people,
since most people work in agricultural activities that yield low and volatile incomes.
Household income for these populations is often not enough to afford a minimum basket of
basic food and non-food items, especially in households with a high dependency ratio. This is
an unfortunate, but common, condition in the country due to the HIV/AIDS epidemics. High
mortality and morbidity during the first decades of the epidemics subsequently left many
orphans and widows to be cared for by elderly relatives (Angeles et al. 2016; National
Statistical Office 2016).
The latest Malawi Multidimensional Poverty Index Report (National Statistical Office, 2021)
indicates that Analysis by region shows that the incidence of multidimensional poverty is
highest in the Southern region and lowest in the Northern region at 63.7 and 43.7 percent,
respectively. Similarly, the intensity of poverty is also highest in the Southern region (55.1
percent) and lowest in the Northern region (50.2 percent). Some 10 per cent of the total
population are thought to be living below the extreme poverty line in households with a high
dependency ratio. This 10 per cent of the population is often referred to as the ‘unfit-for-work
poor’. It is used as a targeting reference for the country’s flagship cash transfer programme,
the Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP), and its registry tool (Angeles, et al., 2018)
It is increasingly recognized that social protection systems not only realize human rights to
income security but are also effective mechanisms to foster national and human development,
reduce poverty and inequality, and enhance resilience. Despite working all their lives and
often performing important roles in society, most older Malawians live in chronic and deep
poverty, with few savings and very limited access to pensions. Instead, Malawi’s older people
mainly rely on family-support, hand-outs, and subsistence livelihoods for survival. This lack
of reliable income and social protection is especially concerning as ageing often comes with
1
declining capacities to sustain productive livelihoods at a time when expenditures, especially

on health care rise (Galvani & Juergens, 2018)
Malawi displays limited financial ownership of its social policies and programmes, with
international donors funding the core of such initiatives. As a result, social protection
programmes including the social cash transfer program often end up being funded and
implemented by different stakeholders in different districts, therefore duplicating efforts and
challenging the harmonisation of the programmes’ operations and tools among different
districts (ILO, 2016)
1.1 Background Information

The Social Cash Transfer programme was launched as a UNICEF-funded pilot exercise in
Mchinji District in the central region of Malawi in 2006. Its aim was to provide regular small
amounts of cash to very poor households that were also deemed 'labour-constrained' – unable
to generate sufficient income through labour – owing to reasons such as old age, disability,
chronic illness or having a very high ratio of child and elderly dependants to working-age
adults (ILO, 2016). The objectives of the pilot programme were cited as the reduction of
poverty, hunger and starvation among ultra-poor, labour-constrained households; an increase
in school enrolment and attendance of children living in target households; and the generation
of information on the feasibility of running a cash transfer scheme on a larger scale in Malawi
(Schubert & Beales, 2006).
The Social Cash Transfer programme expanded further to six other districts and remained
operational in the same seven districts until 2013, when a new round of funding by
international development partners permitted further expansion. Under the scaled-up scheme
the programme's objectives remained largely the same but with an additional emphasis on the
need to improve children’s health and welfare (Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development, 2014). The additional goals included: To contribute to national efforts to
reduce poverty and hunger among ultra-poor and labour-constrained households; increase
school enrolment and attendance of children living in target households; and improve health,
nutrition, protection and well-being of vulnerable children in target households (Arruda &
Lara, 2018).
The Social Cash Transfer programme is coordinated by the National Social Cash Transfer
Programme Secretariat, a full-time unit based at the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development (Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development, 2014). It is
2
implemented through the District Social Welfare Offices and in turn at community level by
the Community Social Support Committee (CSSC). The unit at which the programme is
implemented at the community level is the 'village cluster'. A cluster is a group of villages
comprising between 800 and 1500 households. The cluster is not an official division of local
government administration in Malawi: it has been devised only for the purposes of
implementing the Social Cash Transfer programme (Arruda & Lara, 2018).
In Mulanje the Social Cash Transfer Programme started in 2012 targeting 13,210 households
and 57,585 beneficiaries. It the initial phase of the programme, it was funded by European
Union. However, over the years, donors for the programme have been changing (University
of North Carolina (UNC), 2016). This is consistent with the findings Arruda & Lara (2018)
that Malawi’s social protection system is marked by extreme fragmentation, since the
government has little financial and operational ownership of existing initiatives, which are
mostly funded and run by a number of different development partners. For most initiatives
listed in the NSSP, this leads to overlapping efforts in a context where coverage is far from
universal and even from reaching the entire target population.
1.2 Problem Statement

The Social Cash Transfer programme was launched in Malawi in 2006. Its aim was to
provide regular small amounts of cash to very poor households that were also deemed labour-
constrained owing to reasons such as old age, disability, chronic illness or having a very high
ratio of child and elderly dependants to working-age adults (University of North Carolina
(UNC), 2016). Despite registering some successes such as promoting food security and
improvements in school enrolment, the program is facing some serious criticisms. According
to Tirivayi, Weidler and Otchere (2021), the failure of Cash Transfer to be effective in other
countries has been attributed to: increased consumption and expenditures since cash transfers
are only consumed and not invested; incentivized dependency and reduce work effort;
distortion of prices and induced inflation in local economies and; cash transfers are fiscally
unsustainable. There is little evidence on the impact of longer-term implementation and post-
intervention effects. There is little evidence to determine whether cash transfers provide a
sustainable path out of poverty for the ultra-poor (Galvani & Juergens, 2018).
Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme End Line Impact Evaluation Report (University of
North Carolina (UNC), 2016), for Salima and Mangochi districts indicated that social cash
transfer has had positive impacts in poverty reduction and improvement of wellbeing of
3
beneficiaries. However, the report also indicates that much of the money received was spent
on consumption and ensuring food security for beneficiary households. This brings a negative
impact on the long-term outcomes of social cash transfer program on successful poverty
reduction and promotion of economic asset ownership.
Despite the commencement of social cash transfer program in 2017 in Mulanje district,
poverty head count ratio and ultra-poverty head count remains high at 54.8% and 21.75
respectively (National Statistical Office, 2021). According to a recent poverty assessment in
Mulanje, in the area of T/A Juma, poverty headcount ration is very high at 59.2% and ultra-
poverty head count stands at 22.9 (Give Directly Malawi, 2021). This is the case despite the
area being a beneficiary area for Social Cash transfer program since the program’s inception
in 2017. It is not clear whether the social cash transfer program has had positive impacts on
the livelihoods of elderly headed households in Mulanje district. It is against this background
that this research seeks to investigate the socio-economic impacts of social cash transfer
program among beneficiary elderly headed households in the area of T/A Juma in Mulanje
district.
1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 Main objective
 To investigate the socio-economic impacts of social cash transfer program in elderly
headed households in the area of T/A Juma in Mulanje district.
1.3.2 Specific objectives

i. To identify the expenditure patterns of cash transfers among elderly headed
households.
ii. To examine sources of livelihoods among elderly headed households acquired
through social cash transfers.
iii. To assess the impacts of social cash transfer program on food security of elderly
headed households.
1.4 Research Questions

i. What are the expenditure patterns of cash transfers among its beneficiary households?
ii. What sources of livelihood have elderly headed households managed to acquire
through cash transfers?
iii. How has social cash transfer program contributed to food security for elderly headed
households?
4
1.5 Significance of the Study

The study is important in order to establish if the social cash transfer program is really
contributing to long-term poverty reduction and economic growth for its beneficiaries and the
nation at large. Understanding the expenditure patterns of Social Cash Transfers by its
beneficiaries and sources of their livelihood can help to make informed decisions on the long-
term sustainability of the programme and developing solutions that promote self-reliance
among its beneficiaries especially elderly headed households. According to a research done
by Galvani & Juergens (2018) social cash transfer has is no effect on the financial and debt
position on households headed by older people unlike in other households not headed by
older people. The research then recommended that further research would be needed to shed
more light on the interplay between cash transfers and household finance of older people
headed households in Malawi. This research would also help bridge that gap.
5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The social cash transfer program has its foundation basis on the concept of social protection.
According to Schubert and Beales (2006), the Intergovernmental regional conference report
on social cash transfer program in Africa defined social protection as a range of protective
public actions carried out by the state and others in response to unacceptable levels of
vulnerability and poverty, and which seek to guarantee relief from destitution for those
sections of the population who for reasons beyond their control are not able to provide for
themselves.
Key components of the Transfer Project’s approach are: the creation of platforms for learning
exchange, capacity building in impact evaluation, cross-country analysis and evidence
synthesis, as well as the dissemination of findings through national and international
workshops, traditional and social media, and peer-reviewed publications (Tirivayi, Waidler,
& Otchere, 2021). Cash transfer programs are the most important form of social protection in
Africa and can provide more than just social assistance. Cash transfer programs can also
contribute to economic and social development. By providing a steady and predictable source
of income, cash transfer programs can build human capital, improve food security, and
potentially strengthen the ability of households to deal with exogenous shocks by allowing
them to diversify and strengthen their livelihoods to prevent fluctuations in consumption
(Angeles, et al., 2018).
2.1 Theoretical Framework

The social cash transfer program can be best analysed through a comparison of two
theoretical perspectives. These are; the basic need theory and the Amartya Sen capability
approach to poverty reduction. Apart from helping households to have an improved access to
basic needs, the social cash transfer program should also help households to build long-term
sustainability and improve their capability to be self-reliant.
2.1.1 The basic needs approach to poverty reduction

The philosophy behind the basic needs approach is that the purpose of development is to raise
the sustainable level of living of the masses of poor people as rapidly as is feasible and to
provide all human beings with the opportunity to develop their full potential. (Shing-Yip,
2012). The central notion of the basic needs approach is essentially materialistic. It works by
identifying a bundle of basic consumption and assess whether the population has adequate
access to it. It has been generally accepted that the package should contain commodities that
are universally needed, such as shelter, sanitation, clean water, food, education, health care
6
and other consumable services. However, there has been no universal agreement on what the
bundle should precisely contain. If any individual has inadequate access to these
commodities, then he/she may be considered as poor, and vice versa (Amofah & Agyare,
2022). This approach has inspired waves of policies that aimed to make public services more
reachable for the poor. By increasing the poor’s accessibility to basic consumptions, they
may thus be able to achieve subsistence and live decent lives (Shing-Yip, 2012). To some
extent the social cash transfer program works to poor people with some access to money to be
able to access these basic needs.
Despite easy and wide application, the basic needs approach receives extensive criticisms.
The primary criticism is that the constituents of the consumption bundle are arbitrarily
decided by a few professionals. Besides, this assumes that all goods in the predefined
consumption bundle are equally needed by everyone. In this way, it neglects the fact that
people may value certain needs over the others (Amofah & Agyare, 2022).
2.1.2 The capability approach to poverty reduction

The capability approach reinvented the concept of poverty and linked it to a broader
discussion on human development. This approach emerged in the 1980s and substantially
guided the evolution of the United Nations’ Human Development Report series. Amartya
Sen, who is a major contributor of the capability approach, argued that it comprises of two
indispensable elements: functionings and freedom. The general notion is that people should
not only achieve valuable functionings, but also should have the freedom to pursue those
values. This is distinctively different from the aforementioned basic needs approach since it is
even more positive and empowering (Sen, 1999).
The first element of capability is functionings, which refers to the various things a person
may value doing or being. It thus refrains from adopting a materialistic view as were in the
basic needs approach. One must not overemphasise poverty’s economic aspects while
neglecting its social senses (Sen, 1999). As functionings are embedded and valued by
individuals, diversified functionings may arise. Different people may value different arrays of
functionings, thus theorists have argued for a localised approach for assessment. Sen refrains
from identifying a set of basic functionings because that would not work for every individual
(Shing-Yip, 2012).
Apart from functionings, freedom is another element that constitutes capability. Sen defines
freedom as arrays of functionings that a person may achieve. It refers to the ability to choose
7
and prioritise various combinations of functionings. This imitates the aspiration that people
should be free to choose their way of life. Any discussion on capabilities without mentioning
human freedom would be deemed inadequate (Hick, 2012). Since poverty is interpreted as
the lack of capabilities, the genuine way of lifting the poor is to expand their capabilities.
Anti-poverty would therefore imply the enlargement of choices, such as the opportunities to
lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity,
self-respect and the respect of others (Daoju, 2014).
The cash transfer program, apart from ensuring access to basic need, was also designed in
order to promote people’s capability to engage in business through savings from social cash
transfers. Beneficiaries are encouraged to invest in economic activities such as livestock
farming and other, small scale economic crop production and other small-scale businesses.
Through cluster leaders, the beneficiaries are trained on saving culture and provided available
investment opportunities in their areas. This enables the social cash transfer program to work
towards promoting capabilities of households to become economically independent.
2.2 Global Trends in Social Cash Transfer Program

In Latin America, cash transfer programmes have particularly sought to link efforts to tackle
current income poverty to efforts to tackle the underlying causes of future poverty by
improving human development objectives related to health, education and child labour. The
revolution in the provision of cash transfers has been driven primarily by developing country
governments, particularly Middle-Income Countries (Wouterse & Taffesse, 2018).
Governments have been increasingly willing to make direct payments to poor people and to
trust and empower them to use the money effectively. As part of their poverty reduction and
crisis response agendas, countries such as Mexico, Brazil, China, and Indonesia have
dramatically expanded the coverage and value of cash transfer provision for poor and
vulnerable segments of their population (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011)
Much of what is known about the long-term effects of social transfer programmes derives
from studies of the most rigorously evaluated programme, Mexico’s Progresa cash transfer
program. Studies from Mexico have shown that participation in the programme translates into
improvements in long-term productive capacity of poor households. This cash transfer
programme reduced the poverty gap by 30% among beneficiaries after two years of
operation; raised the height-for-age of beneficiary children by 1 cm after two years compared
with a control group; and is expected to raise the years of schooling among beneficiary
8
children completing the education cycle by close to one additional year. (Arnold, Conway, &
Greenslade, 2011) There is a growing body of research which attempts to systematise
accumulating evidence of the effects of large-scale programmes on various levels of
healthcare and health outcomes.
Experiences learnt from Mexico indicate that the degree to which cash transfers are able to
move beyond poverty mitigation and achieve poverty reduction is highly influenced by key
contextual design and implementation features (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011).
These include the: initial incidence and depth of poverty; degree to which the programme
succeeds in ensuring that transfers reach those who need them; scale and value of cash
transfer provision, relative to the poverty gap; duration of the programme; targeting
methodology; simultaneous implementation of complementary initiatives and functioning of
other public services; and, ability of households receiving transfers to use this support to
leverage step-wise changes in their circumstances (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011).
A study conducted which was conducted in India indicated that there is there is some
evidence that small but reliable flows of income help poor households to diversify livelihoods
and improve their long-term income generating potential by funding the costs of job seeking,
allowing them to accumulate productive assets and avoid losing them through distress sales
or inability to repay emergency loans (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011). Transfers
allow households to make small investments; and in some cases, take greater risks for higher
returns.
In India, farmers protected by the Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra invested

more in higher yielding varieties and fertiliser than farmers in neighbouring states. It was also
discovered that Transfers can allow elderly headed households to obtain access to credit on
better terms and help then easily acquire agricultural assets that help them to harvest more
from their farms. Cash transfers can also contribute to the deepening of financial systems and
widening of access to credit, through technologically advanced payment systems in banks
and post office (Wouterse & Taffesse, 2018).
2.3 Regional Trends of Social Cash Transfer Program in Africa

Most African countries continue to face challenges economically and socially. There is grave
concern that the majority of the population is afflicted by lack of access to basic and social
welfare services, as well as being marginalised. Similarly, the persistence of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, ill-health, poverty, unemployment, lack of education and training, food insecurity
9
and malnutrition, have all contributed to a decline in living standards (Humanitarian Futures
Programme, 2014). Indeed, a number of countries in Africa are registering a regression in
human development indicators, and some diseases are making a come-back, such as polio.
This situation is compounded by the impact of globalisation on social and economic policies,
leaving the most vulnerable to be among the poorest of the poor (FAO, 2014).
In its effort to address the issue of social development and the fight against poverty, the
African Union Commission organised an Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and
Government on Employment and Poverty Alleviation in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso in
September 2004. The outcome was the adoption of a Declaration and Plan of Action to guide
member states to develop policies on poverty reduction and job creation (Tirivayi, Waidler,
& Otchere, 2021). Among others, member states committed themselves to improve the living
conditions of older persons, through better social protection services including improved
pensions, health and other social security schemes. With a view to addressing the plight of
vulnerable groups and improving their living standards, the AU Commission has developed
several blueprints including the African Union Policy Framework and Plan of Action on
ageing to provide social protection to the elderly (Wouterse & Taffesse, 2018).
In March 2006, a three-day Intergovernmental Conference on Social Protection was held in

Livingstone, Zambia. It brought together more than a hundred ministers and senior
representatives from 13 African governments with the aim of examining new ways to tackle
poverty and promote the human rights of the poorest people in Africa. The conference
resulted in the key message that political will is the fundamental driving force for long-term
investment in social protection programmes (FAO, 2014). The conference identified the need
for the joint mobilisation of the determination and actions of stakeholders, including
governments, parliaments, civil society and the donor community, to address poverty,
deprivation, exclusion and the promotion of human rights. Discussion focused on the
connection between social protection and economic growth, and the positive links between
investment in social protection and movement towards national and regional commitments to
human rights goals. The meeting reached the important conclusion that social protection
interventions must be integrated into national-level strategies and plans in order to be
delivered effectively (Schubert & Beales, 2006)
It was recognised early in the discussions that regular cash transfers, to identified vulnerable
groups, offer a cost-effective means to reduce poverty and realise basic human rights. The
10
meeting generally concluded that increasing investment in basic services such as health and
education will only benefit poor people if they have the cash to access them (Angeles, et al.,
2018).
2.3.1 Social Cash Transfer Program in Ethiopia

The Social Cash Transfer Pilot Programme (SCTPP) was launched by the Tigray Bureau of
Labour and Social Affairs (BOLSA) with support from the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) in the Tigray region of Ethiopia in 2011. The goal of the SCTPP is to improve the
quality of life of orphans and vulnerable children, elderly and persons with disabilities and to
enhance their access to essential services such as healthcare and education (Asfaw, Pickmans,
Alfani, & Davis, 2016). Specific objectives include contributing to the reduction of poverty,
hunger, and starvation; increasing school enrolment and attendance; improving the health and
nutrition of children, and generating information on the feasibility, cost effectiveness, and
impact of the SCTPP.
The program provides regular and predictable monthly cash transfers of US$ 7.88
(approximately MK7, 450) to the poorest labour-constrained households. In addition, a
household receives US$ 1.27 for each child plus an additional US$ 0.50 if the child is
enrolled in school, up to a maximum of four children. Households with a disabled child
receive an additional US$ 2, a disabled adult US$ 2.54, and an elderly dependent US$ 3.05.
This is the Largest of its kind in Africa run by the Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development, co-funded by the government, the World Bank and DFID (Galvani &
Juergens, 2018).
Beneficiary households are selected through a community-based targeting process, facilitated

by the Community Care Coalitions (CCC), the primary structure at local level, in cooperation
with woreda social workers. By January, 2014 the programme reached 3 767 households, of
which around 40% with children under 18 and 75% female-headed (FAO, 2014). The pilot
phase finished at the end of 2014.
The Tigray SCTPP qualitative study, which found that the cash transfer, acted as a safety net
mechanism, and improved beneficiaries’ confidence, feelings of self-esteem and involvement
in social networks. That study also found increased creditworthiness among beneficiaries,
which aligns with the increased borrowing noted in this report (Asfaw, Pickmans, Alfani, &
Davis, 2016). There were also increases in the likelihood of ownership of agricultural
implements for beneficiary households. Some effects were particularly noticeable for
11
different groups as well. Impacts were found in Bahr Tseba, particularly in livestock
ownership, number of livestock owned and livestock by-products, wage labour, subjective
beliefs for elderly and disabled household heads or adults, and food consumption for
households and children in households (Otchere & Damoa, 2020).
By 2016, the social cash transfer program in Ethiopia had reached 8.4 million food insecure
people, including children, older and disabled people and women. However, the analysis
indicated that the program left out large numbers of vulnerable people in areas not designated
as food insecure. There was also lack of clear criteria to target beneficiaries and low
institutional capacity (Asfaw, Pickmans, Alfani, & Davis, 2016).
2.4 Trends of Social Cash Transfer in Malawi

The Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme popularly known as Mtukula Pakhomo is an
unconditional transfer targeted to ultra-poor, labour-constrained households. The main
objectives of the SCTP are to reduce poverty and hunger, and to increase school enrolment.
The programme began as a pilot in 2006 in Mchinji District and was subsequently expanded
to an additional six districts in 2007 (FAO, 2014). As of September 2017, the programme was
reaching over 777,000 beneficiaries in over 174,500 households across 18 districts of the
country, including approximately 430,000 child members (Galvani & Juergens, 2018).
The SCTP is one of five key social protection initiatives implemented as part of the Malawi
National Social Support Program (MNSSP II). The World Bank, European Union, German
Government through KfW, and the Government of Ireland fund the program with technical
support provided by UNICEF and other partners (Handa, 2015). On average, households
receive 9,000 Malawian Kwacha per month, which leads to profound improvements in the
lives of beneficiaries (Pozarny, & O’ Brien, 2015). Although the impacts on risk management
are less uniform, cash transfer programs appear to strengthen community ties, allow
households to save and to pay off debts, and decrease reliance on adverse risk coping
mechanisms (Wouterse & Taffesse, 2018).
Transfer amounts for the SCTP vary by household size and the number of school-age
children present in the household. In 2015, when the evaluation was finalized, the transfer
amounts were Malawian Kwacha (MWK) 1,700, 2,200, 2,900 and 3,700 for households of
size 1 to 4 or more, respectively. A bonus to incentivize school enrolment is provided to each
primary-school age child (MWK 500) and secondary-school age child (MWK 1,000) per
12
month. The transfer amounts represented approximately 23% of pre-program household

consumption (Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development, 2014).
The Social Cash Transfer scheme rapidly received endorsement by the Malawi Cabinet. In
2007, following the allocation of US$9 million of funding from the Global Fund for AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria, a Social Cash Transfer Secretariat was set up in the then Ministry
of Gender, Children and Community Development with the remit of expanding the
programme to six further districts out of the 28 in the country: Chitipa and Likoma in the
northern region; Salima in the central region and Machinga, Mangochi and Phalombe in the
south (Galvani & Juergens, 2018).
The social cash transfer has become a major income source for programme beneficiaries. For
some, particularly the elderly, it even constitutes the primary source (Ministry of Gender,
Children and Social Development, 2014). According to a study by Galvani and Juergens
(2018), in communities in Salma and Balaka, two livelihood strategies stand out for being
adopted in every community and accounting for quite a substantial proportion of many
households' income which are farming, and casual day labour (known as ganyu). A cording
to the study this was the case before the Social Cash Transfer was introduced and continues
to be so now. Cash transfers comprised about 65 percent of beneficiaries' annual income in
Salima and Balaka. The median value reported was just under 40 percent of income. These
findings are consistent with the findings of Trivayi et al (2021) and, Wouterse & Taffesse
(2018) that social cash transfers are highly used as a source of livelihood in Africa and
largely spent on consumption and not investment in productive economic assets.
According to Galvani and Juergens (Galvani & Juergens, 2018), in Salima, beneficiaries
relied heavily on the cash transfer as one of their main income sources. They estimated on
average that almost one quarter (23 percent) of their income came from the sale of crops.
Twenty six percent of the respondents in Salima also reported significant income from
labouring (ganyu). For those beneficiaries employed in ganyu this amounted to an average 29
percent of their total income. Three-quarters of respondents in Siyasiya village reported
income from their small businesses such as mat-weaving and broom-making, activities which
contributed an average 11 percent to beneficiaries' total household income in that cluster. In
stark contrast, in remote Khonthi not a single beneficiary reported income from a small
business. In addition, one-third of beneficiaries said they earned some income from livestock,
but this was rarely cited as a major source, accounting for less than 5 percent of the average
13
annual total. Finally, a small number of beneficiaries in Siyasiya reported a small return on
their contributions to a Village Savings and Loans (VSL) scheme. This indicates that most
cash transfer beneficiaries heavily rely on cash transfers as their livelihood.
In Kaduya TA, in Phalombe district, the analysis confirms that beneficiaries in general relied
heavily on the cash transfer as their main source of income – even more so than was reported
in Salima district. On average respondents declared that the cash transfer represented over 60
percent of their annual income. This was supplemented by the sale of crops which, as in
Salima, provided an average of around 20 percent of household income. While over one half
of beneficiaries reported some earnings from ganyu, this provided those beneficiaries on
average with only 14 percent of their income. Beneficiaries explained that since the
introduction of the cash transfer they had been able to reduce their reliance on ganyu and
increase their income from their own farm plots (Galvani & Juergens, 2018). The low share
of income from ganyu in Phalombe compared with Salima may also reflect the lower daily
wage rate in the area. Within Phalombe, a significant number of beneficiaries in the more
remote Chabuka village cluster relied additionally on remittances from relatives to boost their
household income; this may be illustrative of the practice of men going to work in agriculture
in neighbouring Mozambique.
2.5 Conceptual framework

The social cash transfer program is based on an assumption that individuals can be trusted
and empowered to make effective use of resources available to them to improve their living
standards (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011). While poverty is multidimensional, low
and variable income is central to the problem. Modest but regular and reliable flows of
income from cash transfers help households to smooth consumption, enabling them to sustain
spending on food, schooling and healthcare in lean periods, without the need to sell assets or
take on debt (Pozarny, & O’ Brien, 2015). Over time, transfer income can help households to
build human capital, accumulate productive assets, and obtain access to credit on better
terms.
Direct transfers to households are not an alternative to improvements in basic services such as
healthcare and education, but they are an important complement. Well-designed and
implemented cash transfer programmes can have a significant impact on chronic poverty and
vulnerability by helping poor men and women to benefit from and contribute to growth
14
(Arruda & Lara, 2018). Cash transfers can also help poor households overcome cost barriers
that constrain their access to essential public services.
Figure 1 summarises how the receipt of cash transfers may contribute to mutually reinforcing
gains in the economic and human potential of poor and vulnerable households.
Figure 1: Causal pathways by which cash transfers can improve household welfare (Arnold,
Conway, & Greenslade, 2011)
15
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design
The study used mixed methods in order to have an in-depth understanding of expenditure
patterns of cash transfers among elderly headed households and determine how many people
have benefited socio-economically from cash transfers through acquisition of economically
productive assets.
3.2 Study Population

The study population was the total number of elderly headed households in Group Village
Head Manyumba, T/A Juma that have benefited from the social cash transfer program so far.
145 elderly headed households have so far benefited from the program in the area of GVH
Manyumba in T/A Juma cluster (Otchere & Damoa, 2020).
3.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The people that qualified into the study population were all households that are beneficiaries
of the social cash transfer program which are headed by a man or woman aged sixty years
and above.
For the exclusion criteria, all social cash transfer beneficiary households whose household
head is aged below the age of fifty-nine years old where exempted from the study.
3.4 Sample Size

A sample size of 106 households was selected from the study population. The sample was
calculated using Slovin’s formula at 95 percent confidence interval and 5 percent (0.05) error.
Below is the formula.
n=145/(1+145x0.05x0.05)
n= 106
16
The study also used information obtained from four key informants. The Key informants
were cluster or chairpersons from the four clusters in Namphungo area GVH Manyumba.
3.5 Sampling method

Simple random sampling was used to select the sample size. A list of beneficiaries was
obtained from the cluster chairpersons for sampling purposes. The names were arranged in
alphabetical order with each house assigned a number from 1 to 145.
Computer generated random numbers using Microsoft excel Rand() function were used in
order to randomly select the sample population. The excel randomiser arranges the study
population in a random order giving every responded in the study population an equal chance
of being picked without the probability of one respondent being picked twice.
The random numbers were arranged in ascending order and the first 1o6 households were
selected to be the sample population.
For the key informants, purposive sampling was used to select respondents. Four key
informants, who are clusters chairpersons for the four clusters were interviewed using an
interview guide.
3.6 Data Collection Methods

A survey method was used to collected data. The data collection tool used was a
questionnaire which was developed and used in administering in person interviews to elderly
headed households that are beneficiaries of social cash transfer program. Research assistants
(close friends) were used to help in questionnaire administration.
Interview Guides were developed that were used to collect data from Key Informants.
3.7 Data Analysis

Data analysis was done using SPSS. Bar graphs, charts, percentages and frequency
distribution were used to interpret the data. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic
analysis of qualitative data obtained from key informants.
17
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Demographic information
4.1.1Sex distribution
From the 106 study participants that were interviewed, 23% (24 beneficiaries) of the
beneficiaries were male while 77% (82 beneficiaries) were female. One of the key informants
stated that women manage the cash transfers better than men that’s why most of the
beneficiaries were females even in families where both parents are available.
“most of the beneficiaries registered were females because from experience women
better manage the money to cater for household needs while men often end up
spending some of the money on alcohol and other irrelevant things” chairperson
from one cluster.
The figure below illustrates the age distribution of the respondents.
Sex distribution
23%
77%
MALE FEMALE
Figure 2.
These findings agree with the findings of Lumbasi (2018) In Ethiopia where the percentage
of beneficiaries of the program was heavy skewed towards females. The study indicated that
targeting women is based on the assumption that women prioritize the needs of children
unlike men and can generally be relied upon to spend the money they are given in accordance
with children’s needs. These findings are contrary to the findings of Parker and Todd (2017)
where there the percentage of beneficiaries of the program were not highly skewed towards
females. 56 percent of the beneficiaries were females while 44 percent were males.
18
4.1.2 Marital status

30.2% (32 beneficiaries) of the participants were married while 11.3% (12 beneficiaries)
were divorced and 58.5% (62 beneficiaries) were widows. All widowed families were female
headed. This can also be attributed to the fact that most of the elderly headed households are
widowed because of short life expectancy of men (Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development, 2014). The figure below illustrates the marital status of the respondents
Marital status of respondents
30%
58%
11%
Maried Divorced Widow

Figure 3
These findings in accord with the findings of a similar study in Salima which indicated that
most of the beneficiary elderly households are single parent families due to demise of the
father (Galvani & Juergens, 2018). 51% of the households were headed by females who were
widows.
4.1.3 Family size

There were variations in the number of dependants registered in the Social Cash Transfer
program versus the actual number of dependants. According to social cash transfer data
24.5% of the respondents had 1-2 dependants, 43.4% had 2-4 beneficiaries and 32.1% had
over 5 dependants. However, the actual number of dependants in the households was
different. The figure below illustrates these variations
19
Percentage distribution of dependants

60.00%
51.90%
50.00%
43.40%
40.00%
30.20% 32.10%
30.00%
24.50%
20.00% 17.90%
10.00%
0.00%
1 TO 2 3 TO 4 5+
Registered dependats Actual number of dependants

Figure 4
According to information gathered from the key informants, the variations exist because
some of the children were left to live in the village with their grandparents. There actual
parents either died or moved to town in search for job opportunities. Some of these children
were not accounted for when beneficiary registration was being done at the commencement
of the program. This creates problems in utilization of cash transfers because the money
received which targets a smaller household size has to be spent on covering the basic needs of
a larger group of people or dependants.
“When my family was being registered as a beneficiary of the social cash transfer
program, I had two children whom I was staying with who are orphans but now I
have three children that I’m taking care of. His mother left for Lilongwe in search for
job opportunities after she got divorced with her husband and he was not registered
in the program.”
An investigation on the impact of Social Cash Transfer on poverty reduction among the
beneficiaries in Zambia in Chisamba district found out that the positive impacts of the
program often times tend to be undermined by changes in family size over time where
number of beneficiaries in households tends to rise above the number registered in the
program (Soko, 2019).
4.1.4 Level of education

56.6% of the respondents never attended any formal education while 43.4% were primary
school leavers. None of these beneficiaries had attended secondary school education. These
findings concur with the findings of Daidone, et al (2017) that most rural dwellers who are
20
beneficiaries of social cash transfer program have a low level of education and most of them
are either primary school leavers or never attended any formal education. This factor also has
a huge bearing on the sources of livelihood that the beneficiaries engage in. due to low levels
of education most of the beneficiaries cannot secure a formal employment opportunity. They
end up resorting to agriculture, piece works and small-scale businesses for their livelihoods.
4.1.5 Sources of livelihood

The sources of livelihood for the respondents were measured on three parameters which were
agriculture, small scale business and piece works. Some dependants relied on one source of
livelihood while others combine or diversified their sources of livelihood.
4.1.5.1 Agriculture
All the participants mentioned agriculture as one of their sources of Livelihood which is
mostly done for household food consumption. 62% of the respondents grow for household
consumption while the remaining 38% grow for household consumption as well as for sale.
The commonly gown crop by all respondents was maize which is the staple food. To
supplement their financial needs the respondents also grow vegetables after harvesting maize
which they sake to earn money to support their households. However, only 48% of the
respondents who have dambos or their farming fields are close to a dambo or a river grow
vegetables through irrigation farming.
81.1% of the respondents make less than twenty thousand kwacha a month from agro-
business. 18.9% of the respondents make K20,000 to K30,000 in a month. This money is
used to buy basic needs such as food, clothing and paying for house rentals. 73.6% of the
respondent who have school going children also use part of the money they make monthly to
buy school material such as exercise books and school uniforms
These findings indicate that most if not all beneficiaries rely on agriculture for their
livelihoods which is mostly done for consumption. This is similar to the findings of Galvani
& Juergens (2018) that most of the beneficiaries rely of agriculture as their main source of
livelihood. However, most of the beneficiary households, the maize they harvest from their
field is not enough to cover the while year. Only 17% of the respondents harvest enough to
cover the whole year. As illustrated by Soko (2019) agriculture is the backbone for sources of
livelihoods for many families in poor countries especially in Africa. However, traditional
farming makes poor people harvest little form their fields which does not meet their food
21
consumption demands. The figure below illustrates the case of elderly headed households in
GVH Manyumba area.
Food consumption period

40.0
35.0 34.0
30.0
25.0 22.6
20.0
16.0 17.0
15.0
10.4
10.0
5.0
0.0
1-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 11-12 moths over 12 months
figure 5
This low agriculture productivity was attributed to exclusion of social cash transfer program
beneficiaries from the AIP program. For the past two years, social cash transfer beneficiaries
have been left out of the Affordable farm inputs program by government. It is purported that
were regarded as people who could afford to buy farm inputs on their own using the cash
transfers they receive. However, because they receive small amounts of money, many of
them could not afford to buy a bag of fertilizer to add in their maize fields. One of the clusters
chairpersons lamented that,
“….It is sad to notice that the beneficiaries have for some time been left out of AIP.
They are told that they should be able to buy fertilizer using social cash transfer
program and allow other groups of people to benefit from other social assistance
programs.”
4.1.5.2 Small scale businesses

Apart from relying on agriculture, 35.8% of the respondents also rely on small-scale business
as their sources of livelihood. This is similar to the findings of a research done in Salima on
the socio-economic impacts of social cash transfer program among its beneficiaries which
found out that the main economic activity of the community, as elsewhere, remains small
scale businesses (FAO, 2014)
22
According the findings of this study, the common businesses include vegetable farming as
earlier highlighted, small grocery shops or canteens and cooked food businesses such as
mandazi, zitumbuwa, sweet potato chips and popcorn.
87.4% of the respondents make less than twenty thousand kwacha a month. 12.6% of the
respondents make K20,000 to K30,000 in a month. The respondents who make between
K20,000 and K30,000 per month are those who rely on small grocery shops or canteens.
These findings indicate that the beneficiaries earn little money from their small-scale
businesses which can barely suffice their daily basic needs. There is clear evidence of low
levels of income from their small-scale businesses
4.1.5.3 Piece works or maganyu

54.7% of all respondents also rely on piece works otherwise deemed as Maganyu as their
sources of livelihood. The piece works include working in other peoples’ gardens and fields,
guarding of school or business premisses of other influential people in the community and
building and maintenance of other peoples’ houses.
This is consistent with the findings of a FAO (2014) study in Salima and Phalombe which
discovered that for many households, agriculture alone is unable to provide an adequate
livelihood. Many households are forced to bridge the gap between own production and
consumption needs with casual off-own-farm employment. After own-farm production, piece
work (ganyu) is the most important source of livelihood for most poor households (FAO,
2014) The figure below shows the percentage distribution of engagement in piece works.
Engagement in piece works
10%
8%
52%
29%
farming houshold work guarding builder

Figure 6
23
While the program led to decreased participation of informal labour in other peoples’ farms
and other forms of ganyu labour in Salima (Asfaw, Pickmans, Alfani, & Davis, 2016), the
situation is different for beneficiaries in Mulanje at GVH Manyumba. 54.7% of the
respondents indicated that they still rely on ganyu as a means to supplement their food
deficits and other basic needs.
4.1.5.4 Diversified sources of livelihood

Only 5.7% of the respondents widely diversified their sources of livelihood by combining
agriculture, small scale business and piece works as their sources of livelihood. The reason
for diversification was based on the fact that agriculture alone cannot be sufficient to meet
their basic needs and financial needs.
92.5% of all respondents mentioned that the money they make monthly is not enough to meet
the basic needs of their families. This is also coupled by the rising costs of living in rural
areas as well as in the urban areas. Only 7.5% of the respondents admitted that the money the
make monthly suffices their household basic needs. 75% of the respondents whose earning
suffice their needs are those who combine agriculture, small scale business and piece works
as their sources of livelihood while the remaining 25% are those that rely on agriculture and
small-scale business for their livelihoods.
“The cost of living has been continuously on the rise in the past years. Prices of
sugar, salt, maize, cooking oil and other basic needs have risen. Relying on one
business does not help so I combine agriculture, small scale business and piece works
in order to support my family’s needs.”
These findings indicate that diversification of sources of livelihood is paramount to ensure

increased earnings from non-farm activities which can ably help combat poverty among
social cash transfer beneficiary households. These findings concur with the findings of
Helmy, Ghoneim, & Siddig (2019) on a study on economic impact analysis of social cash
transfers. The study found out most of the respondents rely on multiple sources of livelihood
in order to diversify their sources of income in order to ably support their families.
4.2 Expenditure patterns of cash transfers

The amounts of money the beneficiaries receive has a lot of variations from one household to
another due to differences in the number of beneficiaries and dependants in the family and
number of school going children in the household. The least household receives K5,000
24
kwacha monthly and the highest earning household earns K11,000 monthly. However, most
times the money is received after every two months and sometimes quarterly. On average
every household receives K7,905.7 monthly. The table below shows the variations in the
amounts of money that beneficiaries receive.
Table 1. Monthly earning variations
Description Amount (MK)
Highest earner 11,000
Lowest Earner 5,000
Mean 7,905.7
Range 6, 000
The cash transfer money is largely spent on consumables such food, clothes, housing, buying
school materials such us school uniform, exercise books, pens or pencils and paying for
school fund in order to meet basic needs of beneficiary households.
4.2.1 Expenditure in food.

Before being beneficiaries of the cash transfer, the beneficiaries spent 68 percent of their
earnings from their livelihoods on buying food items. After being enrolled in the social cash
transfer program, 92.5 percent of the of the beneficiaries mentioned that they spend some of
the money they receive from cash transfers on buying food families to supplement the food
deficits from their other sources of livelihood discussed earlier. Mostly, the respondents buy
maize and legumes such as beans, peas and pigeon peas. These food items are easy to keep
over longer periods of time. However, 69% the beneficiaries spend the money on maize only
while the remaining 31 percent buy maize and other food items such as legumes.
Food expenditure is highly made towards maize which is a staple food commodity in Malawi.
This is the case for social cash transfer elderly headed beneficiary households because they
are no longer included in the beneficiaries list for AIP which makes them harvest very little in
their fields because they grow their maize without applying fertilizer. They buy more maize
to cover their food deficits. One of the household heads lamented that;
25
“I harvest very little from my field so when I receive the money, I make sure that I
firstly buy maize for my family and spend little on buying legumes as relish. Clothes
are not a priority for me”
The figure below illustrates the differences in amounts of money spent of various food items.
Percentage expenditure on food

80%
69%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
14%
9%
10% 5%
3%
0%
Maize Beans Soya beans Pigeion Peas Peas
Figure 7.
These findings are consistent with the findings of Fiszbein and Schady (2009) that
households that receive cash transfers spend more of it on consumption within the food
basket. As also observed by Helmy, Ghoneim, & Siddig (2019), the priority item for
expenditure of social cash transfers for most households is their staple food which in
Malawian Setting is nsima which is made from maize.
4.2.2 Expenditure on clothes.

The findings this study indicated that before being enrolled in the social cash transfer
program, all beneficiaries spent part money earned from their livelihoods to buy clothes for
their family including school uniforms for school going children. After being enrolled into
the program, 83 percent of the households spend some of the money they receive from cash
transfers on buying school uniforms for their school going children. This is done in order to
prevent their children from missing school due to unavailability of a school uniform or shoes
to cover their feet. 17 percent of the households responded that they spend some of the cash
transfer money on non-school related clothes such as chitenje and other cloth types.
This shows that the program is really helping in ensuring access to basic needs such clothing.
These finding point out that the social cash transfers program highly slants towards the basic
26
needs approach to development and poverty reduction. The cash transfers have had a positive
impact of improving the access to basic needs of the people such as food and clothing. This is
also consistent with the finding of Galvani & Juergens (2018) in a study on the impacts of
Malawi’s Social Cash Transfer on Older People and their Households conducted in Balaka.
The study found that expenditure patterns of cash transfers point towards the fulfilment of
basic needs for households. The findings are also in accord with the findings of Fisher, et al.,
(2017) conducted in six countries implementing the social cash transfer program. The study
found that the transfers also helped to promote school attendance by school going children
and ensured availability of school uniforms for school going children apart from allowing
beneficiaries to access to other types of clothing.
4.2.3 Expenditure in school materials

75% of the respondents who have school going children use part of the cash transfers to buy
school materials such as text books, rulers, school shoes and uniforms for their children. This
has helped to keep their children in school and promote school attendance. Before being
beneficiaries of the social cash transfer program, thy could hardly manage to buy the
aforementioned school materials (Give Directly Malawi, 2021). These findings are consistent
with the findings of Helmy, Ghoneim, & Siddig (2019) which found out that cash transfers in
Ethiopia were spent on buying school materials for children. The program impact analysis
indicated that school absenteeism due to unavailability of uniforms and other school materials
reduced by 52 percent due to the influence of social cash transfers. However, the findings of
Soko (2019) were contrary to the findings of this study. In an assessment of the social-
economic impacts of social cash transfer program among elderly headed households in
Chisamba area in Zambia, it was discovered that only 48% of the households that received
money for school going children really spent the money on school materials. The remaining
52% spent the money on other unintended issues (Soko, 2019).
4.2.4 Expenditure in Housing

Another key basic need that households require is safe housing. Most of the households of
beneficiaries have a grass thatched house that is not in good shape or dilapidated state and do
not have a house and are living in a house offered to them by some relatives (Give Directly
Malawi, 2021). Through social cash transfer, some of the beneficiaries have managed to use
the social cash transfer money to renovate, build or change their roof from being grass
thatched to iron sheet roofed. Only 15.1% of the households have managed to renovate or
build their households. The low percentage of the number of people who invents in housing is
27
due to little amounts of money they receive which is barely enough to cover housing needs.
As outlined by Davis & Handa (2015), the amounts of people receive greatly influence how
they spend the money and investments which they venture into. Small transfer amounts lead
into consumption only while large transfer amounts lead into expenditure in cash demanding
assets.
As evidenced in a Malawian study in Salima and Balaka, on the Impacts of Malawi’s Social
Cash Transfer on Older People and their Households, it was discovered that only 21% and
26% beneficiary households in Salima and Balaka respectively spent their cash transfers on
improving housing (Galvani & Juergens, 2018). This was highly attributed to the little
amounts of money that the respondents receive. However, to the contrary, a study on the
economic impacts of the social cash transfer program in Ethiopia found that the level of
expenditure of cash transfers in housing was higher at 54% (Helmy, Ghoneim, & Siddig,
2019). This was possible because the Ethiopian cash transfer program offers constant more
money to its beneficiaries such that it is dubbed Africa’s biggest cash transfer program
(Asfaw, Pickmans, Alfani, & Davis, 2016). In an assessment of livelihood impacts of cash
transfers within household economics in six beneficiary countries namely; Kenya, Ethiopia,
Malawi, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Ghana it was discovered that Ethiopia is the highest cash
transfer with its average transfer amount at 8.69 dollars which is about MK10,500 monthly
(Fisher, et al., 2017).
The figure below indicates the levels of expenditure in housing amongst the 15% of the study
population that spends their cash transfers on housing.
Expenditure in housing
28%
41%
31%
Expenditure in housing building new house

Expenditure in housing changing roofing
Expenditure in housing wall and floor renovation
Figure 8
28
This concurs with findings of Aswaf et al (2016) in Salima where it was discovered that a
small proportion of the elderly headed households invested in house repairs and payments for
labour and materials. As pointed out by Davis & Handa (2015) expenditure patterns fluctuate
through different periods in the year but much evidence points out that the cash transfers are
largely spent on consumption.
4.3. Livelihoods acquired through cash transfers

The livelihoods that the beneficiaries engaged in through cash transfers were livestock
farming, crop production, village savings and loans or village banks and small-scale business.
4.3.1 Livestock farming

50.9% of the respondents spend savings from cash money on livestock farming as a business
to supplement their other sources of livelihood. 94.3% of the households that invested in
livestock farming are engaged in goat rearing, 3.8% in pig rearing and 1.9% in cattle rearing.
This agrees with the findings of (Tirivayi, Waidler, & Otchere (2021) that social cash
transfer beneficiaries often venture into ownership of livestock assets and engagement in non-
farm activities. The figure below shows the levels of expenditure in livestock farming among
the 50.9% of the population.
Livestock Investiments
1.9%
3.8%
94.3%
Goats Pigs Cattle

Figure 9
However, all respondents admitted that the money they receive from cash transfer is not
enough to supplement their basic needs as well as save for investments in livestock. There
has been low level of engagement in economic activities through cash transfers. This was
evident from the findings of this study which discovered from the 50.9% of the respondents
29
who invested in livestock farming only 40.1% of them which represents 20.8% of all
respondents are still in the livestock business. The remaining 59.1% could not keep their
livestock for longer and sold them to cover their critical basic needs such as food and clothing
and shocks due to drought as well as delayed payments of cash transfers.
It was also discovered that those who successfully ventured into livestock farming business
are those households that have diversified sources of livelihoods for their families or received
other cash plus incentives from cash transfers offered by other Non-Governmental
organizations. This means that only 20.8% of the beneficiaries successfully invested their
cash transfers in income generating assets.
This points out to failure of the social cash transfer program boost capabilities of the
beneficiaries to be able to be self-reliant. The beneficiaries receive small amounts of money
which often times only meets their basic needs and is not enough not ably establish a
successful business.
These findings are consistent with the findings of Aswaf et al (2016), and FAO (2014) which
indicated that despite people acquiring livestock, the programme however led to a decrease in
total livestock sales for households overall and for large farm households due to distress sales
of livestock. OPM (2014) noted that households purchased livestock both to build up a stock
of assets and for sustainable sources of income after the programme’s closure. Yet they also
found households had to sell off livestock, especially as a result of poverty, food
insufficiency at household level as well as loan payment. The evidence gathered points out
that the social cash transfer program is taking the basic needs approach and not the capability
approach as advanced by Amartya Sen.
4.3.2 Crop production

Only 14% of the respondents mentioned that they use part of their cash transfers in crop
production by growing crops mostly fruit vegetables and dambo maize for sale. The fruit
vegetables that people grow are egg plants and cabbages which are easy to grow in the area.
30
Crop production levels

45.00%
41.20%
40.00% 36.50%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00% 22.30%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Egg plants Cabbages Maize
Figure 10
The low investment in maize production was due to lack of inputs such as fertilizer for maize
production which is required in large amounts unlike fruit vegetables. The harvest from the
fields is sold at Namphungo and Nkando markets during market days where business people
from Blantyre come to order vegetables especially at Nkando market. One of the respondents
was quoted saying;
“Through social cash transfer money, I have been able to buy seeds for cabbages and
egg plants, buying pesticides and watering canes for watering the crops. I rely on
vegetable business for my livelihood. I often sell my crops and Nkando market on
Tuesdays and Saturdays.”
These findings are in accord with the findings of Galvani & Juergens (2018) in Salima and
Balaka which indicated that most elderly headed household beneficiaries of social cash
transfer program invest in growing fruit vegetables unlike leafy vegetables for their
livelihoods because fruit vegetables fetch a higher market price than leaf vegetables.
However, the findings form a study in Zambia indicate that beneficiaries mostly invested in
maize farming because agro-inputs such as seeds and fertilizer are cheaper and easier to
access for the beneficiaries (Soko, 2019).
4.3.3 Village Savings and Loans (VSLs) and Village banks

Only 8 respondents of all study participants representing 7.5% spend their money in Village
Savings and loans or village banks in order for their money to accumulate interests. The
village savings and loans platform helps the beneficiaries to keep their money safe and avoid
unnecessary expenditures. The study also found that 75% respondents who invested in
Village banks used their proceeds to build or renovate their houses while the remaining 25%
31
used their proceeds in boosting their livestock business. This indicates that investment in
Village Savings and Loans offers a multiplicative effect on the cash transfers in increases the
likelihood of investing the money in other productive investments.
The finding of this study also corresponds with the findings of Fisher et al., (2017) who
discovered that investments in village banks or VSLs increases the potential for beneficiaries
to invest their cash transfers plus interests in other income generating businesses and
cushions them from selling their assets during shocks because the VSLs provide loans that
they can use to cushion shocks other that selling their productive assets. However, the
proportion of beneficiaries investing in VSLs in Tigray region in Ethiopia was higher at
58.2% unlike in the area of this study where it was at 7.5% (Fisher, et al., 2017).
4.3.4 Small Scale Businesses

9.4% of the respondents used social cash transfer funds to start small scale businesses. These
small-scale businesses included small hawkers or shops and cooked food businesses such as
madasi, popcorn and zitumbuwa. Only 4 of all respondents representing 3.8% spent their
money on opening hawkers or small shops while the 6 respondents representing 5.7% spent
their money of cooked food business. Those that sell cooked food often sell it at primary
schools to primary school going children during break time.
These findings indicate that very elderly headed beneficiary households spend their money on
starting small scale businesses. Evidence from this study indicates that cash transfers are
highly spent on consumption that invested in small scale businesses. This also concurs with
the findings of a study on lessons learnt from social cash transfers consumption patterns
which found out that in most countries, cash transfers are highly consumed than invested and
there is little evidence of long-term sustainable economic impacts of the program (Tirivayi,
Waidler, & Otchere, 2021). Social cash transfers do not guarantee a sustainable path out of
poverty for most of its beneficiaries (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011).
4.4 Impacts of cash transfers on food security

4.4.1 Impacts on farm harvest
All the households admitted that before being beneficiaries if social cash transfer program,
they were harvesting little maize from their fields that could not suffice their food demands
for the while year. After years of being beneficiaries, 17% of the beneficiaries are now food
secure as they harvest enough maize to meet their food demand through access to funds to
buy farm inputs such as seeds and fertilizer from cash transfer savings. For the remaining 83
32
percent their harvest has not increased. The money they make is not enough to buy farm
inputs that ensure increased maize production.
Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the beneficiaries have for the past two years been left out of
other social protection programs such as AIP. It is claimed that this is done as one way of
ensure social justice and equality in access to social protection programs. As a result, the
social cash transfer beneficiaries are left out under the assumption that they will use their
social cash transfers to buy farm inputs for their farms. However, because they money they
receive is little, they have not been able to secure the much-needed inputs to improve crop
production. This had led to increased food insecurity among the beneficiaries. As quoted
from one of the cluster chairpersons,
“…The money the beneficiaries receive is very little and they cannot afford to buy
fertilizer and seeds at the retail market price.”
This indicates that the program is failing to promote peoples’ capabilities and promote
increased production. This shows that the social cash transfer program is failing to fulfil the
requirements of Amatyr Sens capability approach to poverty reduction. The assumption is
that since they are beneficiaries of the SCTP they do not need to benefit from such other
programs with the assumption that they are going to be food secure through SCTP (Aswaf,
Josh , Winters, Handa, & Davis, 2014). However, the findings of this study show the
contrary. Despite being beneficiaries, the money the beneficiaries receive is not enough to
buy fertiliser at normal prices. As a result, 83% of the beneficiaries have not been able to buy
fertiliser for their maize fields in the past two to three years. This has led to food insecurity
because they realise only a handful or harvests from their fields which only lasts for a few
months averaging at 6 months. Despite years of being beneficiaries, the households are yet to
be empowered and self-reliant in agricultural productivity.
Food security is measured by looking at three key issues which are; food availability; food
accessibility and food stability. The findings of this studs indicate that the Social Cash
Transfer program, while ensuring food availability and accessibility, it is failing to ensure
food stability. Furthermore, only 17% of the beneficiaries have sustained food access and
availability. These findings are however contrary to the findings of Daidone, et al (2017) in
Lesotho where it was found that social protection programs such as cash transfer have helped
33
ensure sustained food availability in 78% of the households while being complemented by
other social protection programs.
These findings also provide empirical evidence that the cash transfer program is highly
implemented in line with the basic needs approach to poverty. While not sustainably sufficing
the basic needs of the beneficiaries, it helps in complementing their efforts in search for basic
needs such as food. The program is failing to improve peoples’ capability to become food
secure and have all year access to food without any deficits.
4.4.2 impacts on household food buying capacity

83% spend their cash transfers to cover maize harvest deficits. However, despite spending
their cash transfers on buying food, some the families are still not food secure as the money is
not enough to cover their food deficits for the whole year. 28.4% of the respondents, their
maize only lasts for 8 to 10 months. One family lamented that the household has 6
dependants but only three were registered under the social cash transfer program and the food
they buy using the cash transfer money does not suffice the food demands for their family.
The social cash transfer program is designed on the premise that it will help boost the food
purchasing ability of the households to cover their food deficits. However, continued rising
costs of living has made the amounts people receive lose market value over time. When the
money is received, it is also spent on other consumable items making it not enough to meet
food consumption demands. The money the beneficiaries receive is very little and hardly
meets their basic needs such as buying food. This agrees with the finding of Arnold, Conway,
& Greenslade (2011) that sustainable large amounts of cash transfer are essential if the cash
transfer program is to achieve its intended goals and objectives.
There is need for social cash transfer program to be complemented by other programs. These
finding also concur with the findings of Tirivayi, Waidler, & Otchere (2021) and Wouterse &
Taffesse (2018) that for social cash transfer programs to be effective they need to be
complemented with other social protection programs because in most cases the amounts
received are not adequate address all socio-economic needs of the beneficiaries.
Complementing social cash transfer with other social protection programs such as the
Affordable Inputs Programme can help the cash transfer program to promote food security by
ensuring food accessibility, availability and stability.
34
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study it is clearly evidenced that the social cash transfer has
been an effective tool ensuring the substantiable access to basic needs for the beneficiaries.
The beneficiary households are labour constrained and mostly rely on small scale agriculture
largely for consumption, small businesses and piece works. The cash transfers help
beneficiaries to cover their consumption needs through buying food especially maize and
legumes to cover food deficits from their harvests in order to reduce food insecurity.
However, the program is failing to effectively achieve food security because the money the
recipients receive is not enough to cover all their basic needs and only 17 percent have
become food secure.
Only 20.8 percent of the beneficiaries have successfully established livestock business which
supports their livelihoods. This indicates that the cash transfers are largely spent on
consumption. Only 15 percent managed to build or renovate their houses. Failure of the
program to uplift people from food insecurity and helping them to get income generating
assets is largely due to the low amounts of money that the beneficiaries receive and
sometimes long delays for the beneficiaries to receive their money. This is in accord with the
findings of a study on transfer size in selected national cash transfer programmes in sub-
Saharan Africa. The study discovered that during the two-year evaluation of the Livelihood
Empowerment Against Poverty programme in Ghana, the cash benefit lost real value due to
inflation, reflecting the need to ensure cash transfer amounts are updated regularly (Davis &
Handa, 2015).
The social cash transfer program highly slants towards basic needs approach because it has
been an effective tool to ensure access to basic need like food, clothing and housing to labour
constrained elderly households. The program has however done little to build capacity if its
beneficiary elderly headed households. Evince points out that only 20.8% have successfully
invented in livestock farming which earns then enough to support their families while a
cumulative of 23.4 have invested in small scale businesses which however do not earn the
households enough to be self-reliant.
5.1 Recommendations
The amounts of money households receive needs to be revised upwards in order to be
adequate to help households cover their basic needs as well as stimulate acquisition of
35
income generating assets. The rising cost of living exacerbated by devaluation of the Kwacha
has further depreciated the market value of the cash transfers hence the need to adjust the
amounts upwards. As illustrated by Davis and Handa (2015) It is also important to regularly
adjust the size of transfers so their real value does not diminish with time.
The program also needs to be supported with other social protection programs such as the
Affordable Inputs Program, school bursaries and relief programs if it is to fully contribute to
food security. A good example is from Lesotho, where an unconditional cash transfer
programme was combined with an agricultural intervention that provided vegetable seeds and
training on home gardening and food preservation. The pilot programme generated positive
impacts on productive agricultural activities. In response to these findings, a subsequent
complementary livelihoods programme was designed, providing support through access to
community-based savings and lending groups, financial training, nutrition training and
training on market access (Daidone, et al., 2017).
The cash transfer payment plans also needs to be timely for proper planning and utilization
by the beneficiaries to prevent the beneficiaries from entering into debt or worst selling some
of their already acquired economic assets. Irregular transfers are also likely to result in fewer
and smaller impacts than predictable and timely transfers. In Tanzania, findings from the
third wave of data collection for the adolescent cash plus evaluation indicated that the
programme’s positive impacts may have been weakened because of cash transfer payment
delays, which resulted in the unanticipated loss of predictable income for households (Tiwari,
et al., 2016)
The beneficiaries also need to be encouraged to diversify their sources of income. The
findings of the study have indicated that have multiple sources of income are the ones who
seem to have benefited a lot and have managed to make savings from the cash transfers and
made some investments in goats rearing and supplementing their savings towards building
and renovation of their houses.
5.3 Strengths and limitations of the study

The study used mixed methods research design. This helped to acquire both quantitative and
qualitative data about the study population. This offered in in-depth understating of the
expenditure patterns of social cash transfers and its socio-economic impacts among the
elderly headed households. Through the help of cluster chairpersons, it was easy to locate the
36
homes of the sampled households and they requested the beneficiaries to be available on the
day of data collection which helped to ensure 100% response rate.
However, the study faced some limitations. There was no readily available segregated data of
elderly headed beneficiary households. The elderly headed household are grouped together in
one group with single parent households as single headed households’ group. This gave a
tough time is isolation of elderly headed households.
The study also had a constrained budget which made it difficult to recruit more research
assistants to help with data collection hence it took so much time to reach out to all
households of sampled beneficiaries.
5.4 Areas for further study

The findings of this study have helped to develop a deeper understanding of the socio-
economic impacts pf the social cash transfer programme among elderly headed houses with
key emphasis on expenditure patterns and impacts on food security. However there remains
other aspects of the Social Cash Transfer Program that require further studies.
There is need for more research on how cash plus programs can be designed in Malawian
settings in order to supplement SCTP. More research is needed to deepen our understanding
of the impact of cash plus programmes and its implications for cross-sectoral integration and
system building
There is also need for more research on shock responsiveness and inclusiveness of cash
transfers: Evidence on the impacts of shock responsive interventions (including COVID-19
responses) is limited and/or emerging. More research will explore mechanisms for ensuring
more inclusive cash transfers that are responsive to gender inequality and cover certain
vulnerable groups such as children, migrants, people with disabilities, orphans and displaced
people as well as populations vulnerable to climate change
37
REFERENCES
Amofah, S., & Agyare, L. (2022). Poverty Alleviation Approaches of Development NGOs in
Ghana: Application of the Basic Need Approach.
Angeles, G., Abdoulayi, S., Barrington, C., Handa, S., Kainja, E., Mvula, . . . Tsoka, M.
(2018). The Social Cash Transfer Programme of Malawi The Role of Evaluation from
the Pilot to the Expansion . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, C., Conway, T., & Greenslade, M. (2011). DFID Cash Transfers Literature Review.
DFID, UKAID.
Arruda, & Lara, P. (2018). A Brief History of Malawi's: Social Cash Transfer Programme
(SCTP). Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG).
Asfaw, S., Pickmans, R., Alfani, F., & Davis, B. (2016). Productive Impact of Ethiopia’s
Social Cash Transfer Pilot Programme: A From Protection to Production (PtoP)
Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Aswaf, A., Josh , D., Winters, P., Handa, S., & Davis, B. (2014). Cash Transfer Programme,
Productive Activities and Labour Supply: Evidence from Randomized Experiment in
Kenya. Journal of Development Studies, 50(8), 1172–1196.
Daidone, S., Davis, B., Dewbre, J., Miguelez, B., Niang, O., & Pellerano, L. (2017). Linking
Agriculture and Social Protection for Food Security: The Case of Lesotho. Global
Food Security, 12, 146–154.
Daoju, H. (2014). On Capability Approach, Poverty and Corruption. EDP Sciences.
Davis, B., & Handa, S. (2015). How Much Do Programmes Pay? Transfer Size in Selected
National Cash Transfer Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. UNICEF Innocenti
research brief.
FAO, F. a. (2014). From Protection to Production (PtoP) Report. FAO.
Fisher, E., Attah, R., Barca, V., O'Brien, C., Brook, S., Holland, J., . . . Pozary, P. (2017). The
Livelihood Impacts of Cash Transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Beneficiary
Perspectives from Six Countries. In World Development (Vol. 99, pp. 299-319).
Fiszbein, A., & Schady, N. (2009). Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and
Future Poverty. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development / The World Bank.
Galvani, F., & Juergens, F. (2018). Impacts of Malawi’s Social Cash Transfer on Older
People and their Households: A Mixed Method Evaluation of the Social Cash
38
Transfer and Discussion of a Universal Old Age Social Pension for Malawi. London
WC1A 9GB, UK: HelpAge International.
Give Directly Malawi. (2021). Canva Partnership Tackling Extreme Poverty in Malawi One
year On. Give Directly.
Handa, S. (2015). Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme Impact Evaluation: Overview of
the Study Design. University of North Carolina.
Helmy, I., Ghoneim, H., & Siddig, K. (2019). Implementing Cash Transfer Programmes in
Egypt Differently: An Economic Impact Analysis.
Hick, R. (2012). The Capability Approach: Insights for New Poverty Focus. Journal of
Social Policy.
Humanitarian Futures Programme. (2014). Is Cash Transfer Program Fit for the Future?:
Full Report. King’s College London.
ILO. (2016). Social Protection in Malawi. Summary of The Assessment Based National
Dialogue Report. Lilongwe: Lilongwe: Government of Malawi, Irish Aid, and
International Labour Organization.
Lumbasi, L. A. (2018). Gender and Cash Transfers: Implications of Intrahousehold Decision
Making on Nutrition of Women and Children in Ethiopia. Dublin, Ireland: Trinity
College Dublin/University College Dublin.
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. (2014). Social cash transfer
programme.
National Statistical Office. (2021). Malawi Poverty Report 2020. Chimbiya Road, Zomba:
NSO.
Otchere, F., & Damoa, K. A. (2020). Adressing Lifecycle Vulnerabilities of Beneficiaries in
the Malawi Social Cash Tranfer Program. UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti and
University of Malawi.
Oxford Policy Management (OPM). (2014). Qualitative Research and Analyses of the
Economic Impacts of Cash Transfer Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa: Malawi
Country Case Study Report. Oxford: OPM.
Parker, S. W., & Todd, P. E. (2017). Cash Transfers: The Case of Progresa/Opportunidades.
The Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 866-915.
Pozarny,, P., & O’ Brien, C. (2015). The Impacts of Malawi’s Social Cash Transfer
Programme on Community Dynamics (Vol. 276). The International Policy Centre for
Inclusive Growth.
39
Schubert, B., & Beales, S. (2006). Social cash transfers for Africa: A transformative agenda
for the 21st century. London N1 9ZN, UK: HelpAge International.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shing-Yip, W. (2012). Understanding Poverty: Comparing Basic Needs Approach and
Capability Approach. Bristol, United Kingdom: University of Bristol.
Soko, C. (2019). Investigating the impact of Social Cash Transfer on Poverty Reduction
Among the Beneficiaries in Zambia. A Case Study of Chisamba District. Zambia: The
University of Zambia School of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Tirivayi, N., Waidler, J., & Otchere, F. (2021). Cash Transfers: Past, Present and Future
Evidenceand Lessons Learned From the Transfer Project. UNICEF, Office of
Research-Innocenti.
Tiwari, S., Daidone, S., Ruvalcaba, M. A., Prifti, E., Handa, S., Davis, B., . . . Seidenfeld, D.
(2016). Impact of Cash Transfer Programs on Food Security and Nutrition in sub-
Saharan Africa: A Cross-Country Analysis. Global Food Security, 11, 72–83.
University of North Carolina (UNC). (2016). Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme
Endline Impact Evaluation Report. Chapel Hill, NC.
Wouterse, F., & Taffesse, A. S. (Eds.). (2018). Boosting Growth to End Hunger by 2025: The
Role of Social Protection. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
40
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Budget
NO DESCRIPTION COST/ ITEM QUANTITY TOTAL
(MK) (MK)
1 Printng questionnaire 400 1 400
2 Photocopying questionaire 200 106 21,000
3 Transport to GVH 3,000 3 9,000

Manyumba
4 Printing interview guides 300 1 300
5 Photocopying interview 150 10 1500

guides
7 Grand. Total 32,200
41
Appendix B: Informed Consent

The Catholic University of Malawi
Faculty of Social Sciences
Development Studies Department
My name is Samuel Njanji, a fourth-year student at Catholic University of Malawi, pursuing

a Batchelor of Social Science in Development Studies. As part of the requirement s in
fulfilment for the award of Batchelors degree in Development Studies I am conducting a
research aimed at “Investigating the Social Economic Impact of the Social Cash transfer
Program on Elderly Headed households in the Area of Group Village head Manyumba
in Mulanje district”. The research will help me gain more insights on how the social cash
transfer program has impacted the livelihoods of elderly headed households and its
contribution to poverty and hunger reduction in the country. The research is specifically
targeting elderly headed households. You have been selected to be one of the respondents in
the research.
Participation in this research is voluntary. The information gained from this research will be
treated with at most confidentiality and will solely be used for academic purposes. It is my
greatest hope that you are going to participate in this research as your contributions through
your responses are very vital in the study.
I ________________________________ give my consent to participate in the research. I

have understood the purpose of the research and that the information I give will be treated
with confidentiality.
Signature______________________ Date_______________________
42
Respondent number ________________________ Date___________________

Village ________________________
Group Village Head ___________________
District ______________________
A. Demographic information
1. Age of respondent in years ______
2. Sex of respondent Male Female
3. Marital status
a. Single
b. Married
c. Divorced
d. Widowed
4. Number of dependants
a. 1-2
b. 3-4
c. 5 and above
5. Level of education
a. No formal education
b. Primary school
c. Secondary school
6. Sources of livelihood
a. Agriculture
b. Small scale business
c. Piece works
d. Relying on children and other dependants
7. How much money do you earn approximately in a month from the activities
mentioned in 6 above?
a. Less than k20,000
b. K20,000 to 30,000
c. Above K30,000 and below K40,000
d. K40,000 and less than K50,000
e. Above K50,000
8. What items do you buy with the money earned from your livelihoods?
a. Food
b. Clothing
c. Others, please explain ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
9. In your own analysis does the money you make adequately meet your basic needs_
a. Yes b. No
Please explain __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
B. Expenditure patterns of cash transfers

1. How much money do you receive from the social cash transfer program?
2. At what intervals do you receive cash transfers?
a. Monthly
b. Every two moths
43
c. Quarterly
d. Others_____________________________________________________
3. What items do you buy using cash transfer money?
a. Food
b. Clothes
c. Agricultural inputs
d. Others, specify____________________
4. Do you have other sources of livelihood apart from cash transfers?
a. Yes b. No
If yes, how much money from the cash transfers do you invest in your existing
sources of income?
i. Zero. All is spent on consumption
ii. All the money is invested
iii. Others, specify ____________________________________________
C. Sources of livelihoods acquired through social cash transfers

1. What economic activities have you managed to start using cash transfers?
b. Small scale farming
c. Small scale business
d. None
e. Others specify _______________________
2. How much money do you make monthly from your investments?
a. Less than k20,000
b. K20,000 to 30,000
c. Above K30,000 and below K40,000
d. K40,000 and less than K50,000
e. Above K50,000
3. In your view does the money you receive meet your needs? Please explain.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Have you been able to sustain the business?
a. Yes
b. No
If no, why? ___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
D. Food security.
1. How many bags maize were you harvest from your fields before being beneficiaries
of social cash transfer?
__________________________________
2. How long would your harvest last for consumption?
f. Less than 1 year
g. More than one year or until the next harvesting season
h. Others specify __________________________
3. Have the social cash transfer funds affected your agricultural production?
a. Yes
b. No
Please explain how __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4. What food items do you buy using social cash transfer funds?
44
a. Maize
b. Legumes
c. Others specify _____________________________________________
5. Is the food you buy using cash transfer adequate to supplement your food deficits
a. Yes
b. No
If yes for how long ____________________________________________
End of questionnaire
45
Appendix C: Interview Guide For Key Informants

INFORMED CONSENT
The Catholic University of Malawi
Faculty of Social Sciences
Development Studies Department
My name is Samuel Njanji, a fourth-year student at Catholic University of Malawi, pursuing

a Batchelor of Social Science in Development Studies. As part of the requirement s in
fulfilment for the award of Batchelors degree in Development Studies I am conducting a
research aimed at “Investigating the Social Economic Impact of the Social Cash transfer
Program on Elderly Headed households in the Area of Group Village head Manyumba
in Mulanje district”. The research will help me gain more insights on how the social cash
transfer program has impacted the livelihoods of elderly headed households and its
contribution to poverty and hunger reduction in the country. The research is specifically
targeting elderly headed households. You have been selected to be one of the respondents in
the research.
Participation in this research is voluntary. The information gained from this research will be
treated with at most confidentiality and will solely be used for academic purposes. It is my
greatest hope that you are going to participate in this research as your contributions through
your responses are very vital in the study.
I ________________________________ give my consent to participate in the research. I

have understood the purpose of the research and that the information I give will be treated
with confidentiality.
Signature______________________ Date_______________________
46
Key informants Profile
1. Key informant’s name
2. Position of Key informants
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS
Section I: Sources of livelihood for programme beneficiaries (elderly headed

households)
1. What livelihoods do the beneficiary elderly headed households have?

Explain______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_
2. Do the programme beneficiaries solely depend on cash transfers for their livelihoods?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Section II: Expenditure patterns of social cash transfers
1. From your observations what do beneficiaries buy when they receive their money?
Explain,______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
2. Have any of the program beneficiaries boosted their sources of livelihoods using
social cash transfer funds? Please elaborate,
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________
47
3. What small scale businesses or new sources of livelihood do beneficiary households

start using cash transfers?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Are the beneficiaries able to sustain their livelihoods through subsequent transfers?
Explain_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. In your own view, is the amount of money that beneficiaries receive adequate to meet
the objectives of the program? Explain
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Section III: Food security
1. What food items do people usually buy after receiving their cash?
_______________________________________________________________________
2. How is the program contributing to food security of its beneficiaries?
________________________________________________________________________
3. Does the money that the beneficiaries get ably suffice their food deficit? Please explain
_______________________________________________________________________
4. Overall, in your view, what should be done in order to improve the program?
__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
End of interview.
48

Samuel Njanji Dessertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samuel Njanji Dessertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SOCIAL CASH

SUBMITTED BY : SAMUEL NJANJI

REGISTRATION NUMBER : BSocDS/PT/2020/2782

A DESSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACAULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE-

Candidate’s Name: Samuel Njanji

Supervisor’s Name: Dr J Mangulama

Head of Department’s Name: Mrs A Nkhonjera

Dean of Social Science’s Name: Mr A Mtuta

Figure 2: Age distribution of the respondents.

Figure 3: Marital status of the respondents

Figure 4: Percentage distribution of household dependents

Figure 5: Food consumption period

Figure 6: Level of engagement in piece works

Figure 7: Percentage expenditure on food

Figure 8: Expenditure in housing

Figure 9: Livestock investment

Figure 10: Crop production levels

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION......................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................6

2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................................6

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................16

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN....................................................................................................................................16

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.....................................................................................18

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION...................................................................................................................18

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................35

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

declining capacities to sustain productive livelihoods at a time when expenditures, especially

1.1 Background Information

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3.2 Specific objectives

1.4 Research Questions

1.5 Significance of the Study

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Framework

2.1.1 The basic needs approach to poverty reduction

2.1.2 The capability approach to poverty reduction

2.2 Global Trends in Social Cash Transfer Program

In India, farmers protected by the Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra invested

2.3 Regional Trends of Social Cash Transfer Program in Africa

In March 2006, a three-day Intergovernmental Conference on Social Protection was held in

2.3.1 Social Cash Transfer Program in Ethiopia

Beneficiary households are selected through a community-based targeting process, facilitated

2.4 Trends of Social Cash Transfer in Malawi

month. The transfer amounts represented approximately 23% of pre-program household

2.5 Conceptual framework

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.2 Study Population

3.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

3.4 Sample Size

3.5 Sampling method

3.6 Data Collection Methods

3.7 Data Analysis

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

The figure below illustrates the age distribution of the respondents.

4.1.2 Marital status

Marital status of respondents

Maried Divorced Widow

4.1.3 Family size

Percentage distribution of dependants

Respondent number ______ Date_