首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Development Studies >Comparing the Productive Effects of Cash and Food Transfers in a Crisis Setting: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Yemen
【24h】

Comparing the Productive Effects of Cash and Food Transfers in a Crisis Setting: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Yemen

机译:比较现金和食品转移在危机环境中的生产效果:来自也门随机实验的证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The productive impacts of transfer programmes have been receiving increased attention. However, little is known about such effects in emergency and crisis settings. Even less is known about whether transfer type - a food basket or a cash grant - influences the productive potential of such transfers. Theory suggests that cash transfers can relieve liquidity constraints associated with investments, but subsidised food provision, by acting as a form of insurance, may prevent households from retreating to conservative income-generating strategies during volatile periods. This report contrasts the effects of transfer modality during a randomised field experiment in Yemen. The results demonstrate a modest productive impact of both modalities and suggest a role for liquidity and price risk channels. Cash transfer recipients invested relatively more in activities with higher liquidity requirements (livestock), while food recipients incorporated higher-return crops into their agricultural portfolios.
机译:转移计划的生产率受到增加的关注。然而,关于紧急情况和危机环境中的这种影响很少。甚至不太了解转移类型 - 食物篮或现金补助是如何影响这种转移的生产潜力。理论表明,现金转移可以减轻与投资相关的流动性限制,但通过作为一种保险形式,补贴食品提供,可能会阻止家庭在不稳定期间撤回保守的创收战略。该报告对比也门随机田间实验期间转移模态的影响对比。结果表明,两种方式的适度生产效率,并表明了流动性和价格风险渠道的作用。现金转移收件人在具有更高流动性要求(牲畜)的活动中投入相对较多的活动,而粮食受助人将较高的返回作物纳入其农业组合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号