We explore the impact of a unique universal, unconditional cash-transfer project, the LIFE-project, in Welle, Uganda.
Study Design
Employing mixed methods with difference-in-differences estimates and interviews, we focus on the effects of the LIFE-project on economic, health and well-being, as well as social cohesion outcomes.
Findings
We find that the LIFE-project has positive effects on the residents of Welle along several dimensions, including sustainable livelihoods, total consumption, physical health, emotional well-being, and social cohesion.
Contributions
The unique combination of features of the LIFE-project enables us to explore challenges outlined in the literature, as well as some novel questions, including those related to the inclusion of minors in cash-transfer programs and changes in social cohesion resulting from cash transfers.
Implications
Local institutional incentives and enforcement mechanisms for tackling communal challenges and emerging conflicts, as well as community-managed funds, are of key importance for cash transfers to succeed.
AlatasV.BanerjeeA.HannaR.OlkenB. A.TobiasJ. (2012). Targeting the poor: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. The American Economic Review, 102(4), 1206–1240. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1206
2.
AngelucciM. (2008). Love on the rocks: Domestic violence and alcohol abuse in rural Mexico. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1766
3.
BairdS.McKenzieD.ÖzlerB. (2018). The effects of cash transfers on adult labor market outcomes. IZA Journal of Development and Migration, 8(22), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-018-0131-9
4.
BanerjeeA.FayeM.KruegerA.NiehausP.SuriT. (2020). Universal basic income: Short-term results from a long-term experiment in Kenya. AEA RCT Registry. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1952-2.1
5.
BastagliF.Hagen-ZankerJ.HarmanH.BarcaV.SturgeG.SchmidtT.PelleranoL. (2016). Cash transfers: What does the evidence say? A rigorous review of programme impact and of the role of design and implementation features, ODI Report.
6.
BlochF.RaoV. (2002). Terror as a bargaining instrument: A case study of dowry violence in rural India. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1029–1043. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344588
7.
BobonisG.Gonzalez-BrenesM.CastroR. (2013). Public transfers and domestic violence: The roles of private information and spousal control. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(1), 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.1.179
8.
BullerA. M.PetermanA.RanganathanM.BleileA.HidroboM.HeiseL. (2018). A mixed method review of cash transfers and intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 33(2), 218–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky002
9.
CesariniD.LindqvistE.NotowidigdoM. J.ÖstlingR. (2017). The effect of wealth on individual and household labor supply: Evidence from Swedish lotteries. The American Economic Review, 107(12), 3917–3946. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151589
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
11.
CovarrubiasK.DavisB.WintersP. (2012). From protection to production: Productive impacts of the Malawi Social Cash Transfer scheme. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(1), 50–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2011.641995
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
13.
CunhaJ. M. (2014). Testing paternalism: Cash versus in-kind transfers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 195–230. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.6.2.195
14.
CurrieJ.GahvariF. (2008). Transfers in cash and in-kind: Theory meets the data. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(2), 333–383. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.2.333
15.
DaidoneS.DavisB.HandaS.WintersP. (2019). The household and individual-level economic impacts of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(5), 1401–1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay113
16.
DavalaS.JhabvalaR.StandingG.MehtaK. (2015). Basic income: A transformative policy for India. Bloomsbury Publishing.
17.
Della GuardiaA.LakeM.SchnitzerP. (2022). Selective inclusion in cash transfer programs: Unintended consequences for social cohesion. World Development, 157(1), Article 105922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105922
18.
EswaranM.MalhotraN. (2011). Domestic violence and women's autonomy in developing countries: Theory and evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 44(4), 1222–1263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01673.x
FisherE.AttahR.BarcaV.O’BrienC.BrookS.HollandJ.KardanA.PavanelloS.PozarnyP. (2017). The livelihood impacts of cash transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Beneficiary perspectives from six countries. World Development, 99(1), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.020
22.
FriedmanM. (1957). The permanent income hypothesis. In A theory of the consumption function (pp. 20–37). Princeton University Press.
23.
GentiliniU.GroshM.RigoliniJ.YemtsovR. (2020). Exploring universal basic income: A guide to navigating concepts, evidence, and practices. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1458-7
24.
GreenE. P.BlattmanC.JamisonJ.AnnanJ. (2015). Women’s entrepreneurship and intimate partner violence: A cluster randomized trial of microenterprise assistance and partner participation in post-conflict Uganda. Social Science & Medicine, 133(1), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.042
25.
HaarmannC.HaarmannD.JauchH.Shindondola-MoteH.NatrassN.van NiekerkI.SamsonM. (2009). Making the difference! The BIG in Namibia. BIG Coalition.
26.
HaushoferJ.ShapiroJ. (2016). The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1973–2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025
27.
KarlanD.OseiR.Osei-AkotoI.UdryC. (2014). Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and risk constraints. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(2), 597–652. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju002
28.
McGuireJ.KaiserC.Bach-MortensenA. M. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of cash transfers on subjective well-being and mental health in low- and middle-income countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01252-z
29.
MoffittR. A. (2002). Welfare programs and labor supply. In AuerbachA. J.FeldsteinM. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2393–2430). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1573-4420(02)80013-1
30.
NadlerA.FisherJ. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical validation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60213-0
31.
PhimisterE. (1995). Farm consumption behavior in the presence of uncertainty and restrictions on credit. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(4), 952–959. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243818
32.
RotterJ. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology.
33.
SaezE. (2002). Optimal income transfer programs: Intensive versus extensive labor supply responses. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 1039–1073. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193959
34.
TauchenH. V.WitteA. D.LongS. K. (1991). Domestic violence: A non-random affair. International Economic Review, 32(2), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2526888
van DongenE. M. A.LensinkB. W.MuellerA. M. (2025). Replication package for: Effects of cash-transfer programs[Data set]. DataverseNL. https://doi.org/10.34894/TAIRQM
37.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
WydickB.KatzE.CalvoF.GutierrezF.JanetB. (2018). Shoeing the children: The impact of the TOMS shoe donation program in rural El Salvador. The World Bank Economic Review, 32(3), 727–751. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7822
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
