Evidence Review Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition Summary of Evidence Prepared for the Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015 Harold Alderman 1 Russian Federation Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition Summary of Evidence Prepared for the Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015 About the Series This report is part of the Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition series. The series was created to capture evidence and next steps related to the Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs held in Moscow in September 2015. The Forum convened over 150 individuals from 20 countries, and the resulting technical agenda is being explored through seminars and other enga- gements. More information at http://www.securenutrition.org/ Documents in the Series Summary of Evidence Prepared for the Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015 (Summer 2016) Compendium of Case Studies Prepared for the Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015 (Summer 2016) Report on the Proceedings of the Global Forum on Nutrition- Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition Summary of Evidence Prepared for the Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015 Harold Alderman © 2016 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 19 18 17 16 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to following copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the ­ conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: Alderman, Harold. 2016. “Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary of Evidence Prepared for the Global Forum on Nutrition- Sensitive Social Protection Programs, 2015.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Translations—If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the ­attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official content or error in this ­ World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any ­ translation. Adaptations—If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the ­attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content c ­ ontained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned ­ individual­component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to re-use a compo- nent of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the Publishing and Knowledge Division,  The World  Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail:  pubrights@​ worldbank.org. Cover photos: © Dominic Chavez/World Bank (top left); Gennadiy Ratushenko/World Bank (top right); Daniella van Leggelo/World Bank (bottom). Further permission required for reuse. Cover design: Bill Pragluski, Critical Stages, LLC. Contents Acknowledgments vi Abbreviations vii Executive Summary 1 The Case for Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection 4 Dynamics of Social Protection Investments 5 How Much Is Spent and for Whom? 6 The Poverty Gap 7 Pathways from Social Protection to Nutrition 11 Increasing Income 11 Subsidies, Quotas, Prices, and Conditions 17 Preferences and Behavior 27 Conclusions 30 Notes32 References34 Appendix 44 Boxes 1 Social Protection and Obesity 12 2 Emergency Response and Nutrition in Indonesia 21 Figures 1 Indicative Pathways from Social Protection Programs to Nutrition 2 2 Shares of Development Budgets of Low- and Middle-Income Countries 5 3 Viewing Safety Nets and Social Protection as Part of a Larger Development Policy 6 4 Relationship of Safety Net Spending as a Share of GNP and Proportional Reduction in Poverty Headcount 9 5 Indicative Pathways from Social Protection Programs to Nutrition 11 A.1 UNICEF Framework for Malnutrition 44 Tables 1 Impact of Social Assistance Programs (number of countries) 7 2 Impact of Social Insurance Programs (number of countries) 7 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary v Acknowledgments Harold Alderman is a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA. Alessandra Marini and Andrea Spray (World Bank Group) provided advice on an earlier draft. Menno Mulder-Sibanda and Ugo Gentilini (World Bank Group) provided technical review of the final version. This report was produced by SecureNutrition with funding from the Russian Federation. The goal of SecureNutrition is to support the efforts of World Bank Group staff to catalyze and foster nutrition-sensitive investments and activities across the key conditions that lead to poor nutrition. SecureNutrition offers a curated resource library; original events, blogs, and newsletters on multisectoral nutrition links; forum space on LinkedIn for community notices and discussion; social media and e-mail dissemination; and a hub for reaching potential partners and related networks. vi Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Abbreviations ANC antenatal care BCC behavioral change communication CCT conditional cash transfer DfID Department for International Development (UK) GNP gross domestic product IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute LNS lipid-based nutrient supplement RCT randomized controlled trial THR take-home ration UCT unconditional cash transfer Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary vii Executive Summary The Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Actions in “nutrition-sensitive” Protection Programs, convened by SecureNutrition sectors will be additional critical and the Russian Federation, brought together 150 components of any global strategy donors, implementers, and country leaders to identify practical ways to link the nutrition and social protec- to eliminate undernutrition tion agendas. This background paper served as a (Ruel and Alderman 2013). springboard for discussion at the Global Forum, and represents a synthesis of evidence from nearly 120 ref- erences with a heavy focus on program evaluations. Other documents from the Global Forum include a compendium of 21 case studies, and a conference report that identifies key learnings and gaps in the nutrition-sensitive social protection agenda. Each of these resources will be available on http://www.securenutrition.org by summer of 2016. The reach of social protection programs has grown extensively since the 1980s. Recent World Bank estimates show 64 countries running conditional cash transfers as opposed to only two in 1997 and the rapid doubling of coun- tries in Africa implementing unconditional cash transfers—from 20 to 40 in just the last five years. In total, nearly 2 billion people were enrolled in safety net programs as of 2015. These numbers indicate not just the reach of social protection program- ming but also their continued expansion over a relatively short period. Collectively, such programs show an evolution toward increasing opportunity and resilience among low-income households, striving for impacts on con- sumption, acquisition of human capital, participation in economic growth, and social equity. The net result is a common platform across nearly all countries that includes a suite of well-defined instruments, up to 33 percent of low- and middle-­ income country development budgets, and an orientation toward targeting and reaching vulnerable households. Of particular interest in this paper is the subset of investments that look to enhance human capital through nutrition. These investments capitalize in different ways on the instruments, budgeting, and targeting not available through nutrition-specific programs alone. The focus on vulnerable families in particular lends social protection ­ programs a natural nutrition-sensitive lens. Several conceptual pathways link these two sectors, including: ➤➤ Increasing income through cash transfers and labor programs ➤➤ Providing subsidies and price supports ➤➤ Addressing preferences and behaviors. These pathways are laid out in figure 1, providing a unified view of targeting, social protection program types, intermediate steps, and general nutrition outcomes. This paper finds that social protection transfers tend to increase household budget devoted to food—often more than other income sources—and Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 1 Figure 1  Indicative Pathways from Social Protection Programs to Nutrition Public Works e.g. poverty, 1000 days, women Prices Social norms and values CCT Subsidies Food Purchase quality, quantity Quotas Targeting UCT Conditions Nutrition Health Service Use Status In-kind Transfers Income Child Care School Feeding Behaviors Emergency Response Knowledge Preferences Program Pathway Mediator CCT = Conditional Cash Transfer Outcome UCT = Unconditional Cash Transfer Source: Harold Alderman and SecureNutrition. highlights evidence that transfers can change diet composition and quality. At the same time, the overall effects of income on nutrition outcomes are not clear and vary by country experience and across studies. In general, it appears that both conditional and unconditional cash transfers have not delivered improvements in nutrition commensurate with their success in addressing poverty. Price subsidies and in-kind assistance have complex interactions on both markets and on purchasing decisions. However, many governments have explicit goals to encourage food expenditures, and therefore these approaches remain attractive in such settings. Evidence reviewed in this paper indicates that subsi- dies on fortified foods can have positive nutritional effects, and that in-kind transfers may limit food deficits during periods of currency or price volatility. The merits of conditional cash transfers (CCT) versus unconditional cash transfers (UCT) on nutrition are difficult to determine because few direct comparisons exist outside of the education sector. This paper does find that UCTs as well as CCTs virtually always augment household food consump- tion, diet diversity, and participation in preventive health care. CCTs may have a greater effect on health seeking but the quality of services implicated in conditionalities must be considered, and service use does not always translate into health or nutrition outcomes. School feedings are widespread in-kind programs that can be viewed as conditional on school attendance, estimated to reach 375 million children annually at a cost of $75 billion. The evidence reviewed indicates weight gain is a common outcome, with some programs seeing positive effects on house- hold food security, sibling nutrition, and student attendance and/or learning. But many opportunities remain to increase nutrition sensitivity, such as more widespread micronutrient fortification with iron and folate and consistent links to school curricula and national messaging on diets. 2 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Finally, behavior change and social marketing are avenues to more nutrition-sensitive programming. In the context of social protection these ­ appear most often in transfer programs and to a lesser extent in public works programs. Evidence indicates that knowledge of proper hygiene and feeding practices does not necessarily increase alongside purchasing power, hence the rationale to specifically encourage or program behavioral change communication. As SecureNutrition continues to focus on the operational links between nutrition and social protection, this paper will serve as a key reference point in conjunction with seminars on the same topic. More information and resources will be available on www.securenutrition.org. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 3 The Case for Nutrition- Sensitive Social Protection A recent review by the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group estimated that scaling up 10 proven effective nutrition-specific interventions1 to cover 90 percent of children in the world’s most malnourished countries would diminish stunting globally only by 20 percent and decrease child deaths in those countries by 15 percent—that is, program expansion could reduce all child deaths attributed to malnutrition by a third (Bhutta et al. 2013). Although this result is apprecia- ble and appreciated, it does not go far enough. Social protection is a key Actions in “nutrition-sensitive” sectors will be addi- element of any nutrition- tional critical components of any global strategy to sensitive investment ... through eliminate undernutrition (Ruel and Alderman 2013). These are interventions or programs that address the its targeting to families at risk underlying determinants of fetal and child ­ nutrition— of malnutrition. food security, adequate caregiving resources at the maternal, household, and community levels, access to health services, and a safe and hygienic environment— and that incorporate specific nutrition goals and actions. Social protection is a key element of any nutrition-sensitive investment as it is inherently nutrition- sensitive through its targeting to families at risk of malnutrition. This feature, along with the scale of social protection budgets, fosters the potential for addressing underlying determinants of malnutrition. Taking many of these aspects into account, this paper includes an indicative conceptual pathway that links targeting, social protection program types, inter- mediate steps, and general nutrition outcomes (figure 1). Before elaborating this point, however, it is important to understand the social protection land- scape created by country governments. 4 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Dynamics of Social Protection Investments Social protection programs are dynamic components of the budgets of most countries. As depicted in figure 2, the share of government expenditures devoted to social protection has been growing more rapidly in low- and ­ middle-income countries than investments in other sectors. By 2015 1.9 billion people were enrolled in social safety net programs in 136 countries (World Bank n.d). Cash transfers alone have been credited as supporting between 0.75 billion and 1.0 billion people in low- and middle-income countries at the end of the first decade in this century (DFID 2011). More than a quarter of the rural poor and roughly a fifth of the poor in urban areas received some cash assistance. Two countries had introduced conditional cash programs in 1997; that number had grown to 27 by 2008 and to 64 by 2015. Many of these programs were run as pilots or otherwise localized projects. The number of countries in Africa with unconditional cash transfers doubled from 20 to 40 between 2010 and 2015 (World Bank 2015a). The set of programs classified as social protection includes a broad category of policies and programs to increase opportunity and enhance resilience to economic and natural shocks. Noncontributory transfers or safety nets—also termed social assistance in many settings—are a subset of the larger set of expenditures under social protection (figure 3). Social protection also covers Figure 2  Shares of Development Budgets of Low- and Middle-Income Countries 40 35 Percentage of development budgets 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Education Agriculture Health Transportation and Social communication protection 1980s 1990s 2000s Source: Author’s estimates from IFPRI (2014) data for 99 low- and middle-income countries. Note: These are shares of the development budget, which excludes military expenditures. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 5 Figure 3  Viewing Safety Nets and Social Protection as Part of a Larger Development Policy For example, Social Protection land redistribution; enforcement of contracts Equity For example, labor policy, and property rights; contributory social insurance, universal education and social care services Safety For example, nets irrigation, microfinance, Social risk Poverty Poverty reduction and weather management reduction strategies to foster insurance for pro-poor growth; small farmers services to the poor to facilitate their participation in the growth process programs that can be classified as social insurance, including contributory pensions and unemployment assistance. Both of these categories can be eval- uated in terms of their role in increasing current consumption of low-income households and others facing economic setbacks. In so doing they contribute to poverty reduction and improve social equity. They can also be appraised in regard to their contribution to facilitating the poor in acquiring the capital necessary to move beyond pov- erty and thereby participate in economic growth. A . . . the principal motivation subset of these investments enhances human capital, for most transfer programs is particularly nutrition. This is the lens through which poverty reduction. this study looks at the larger set of objectives of social protection. How Much Is Spent and for Whom? Although the focus of this paper is the relationship between social protection and nutrition, it is important to keep in mind that although often a govern- ment or donor seeks to achieve a greater impact on nutrition from these investments in social protection, the principal motivation for most transfer programs is poverty reduction. Thus, before addressing nutrition sensitivity it is useful to first review the effectiveness of transfers on poverty alleviation. Globally, social protection spending increases at a rate faster than an econ- omy grows. Low-income countries devote 1.5 percent of gross national product (GNP) to safety net programs, middle-income countries spend 1.6 percent of their somewhat larger economies, and high-income countries spend 1.9 percent (World Bank 2015a). While there are a range of program redundancies as well as lacunas in coverage, the net impact of such spending on poverty reduction is 6 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary appreciable. One study concludes that by 2013 between 136 million and 165 ­million people were lifted out of extreme poverty—defined as consumption of less than $1.25 per person per day—with the assistance of transfer programs (Fiszbein, Kanbur and Yemtsov 2014). This finding, however, masks an impor- tant heterogeneity. With smaller shares of their smaller resources and larger numbers of poor households, low-income countries are hard pressed to achieve substantial reductions in poverty through social protection programs. The Poverty Gap As indicated in tables 1 and 2, low-income countries are not able to mobilize enough resources—both in terms of cash and in the capacity to deliver assis- tance to the poorest families—to close the gap between existing consumption patterns and the poverty line at $1.25 per person per day. Middle-income countries, even countries in the less prosperous subcategory of this group are, however, often capable to make progress in this area. Targeted transfers are more successful in reducing poverty than are elements of social insurance. Table 1  Impact of Social Assistance Programs (number of countries) Percent reduction in poverty gap Percent reduction in Gini index Country classification 0–10 10.01–20 >20 0–3 3.01–6 >6 percent percent percent percent percent percent Low-income countries 13 1 1 9 0 0 Lower-middle-income countries 17 7 10 26 7 0 Upper-middle-income countries 13 8 12 20 5 6 High-income countries 0 0 7 2 3 2 Total 43 16 30 56 15 8 Source: Tabulated from World Bank (n.d.). Note: In all countries only the most current year is included. However, as the information is based on survey data there is often a lag. For example, Rwanda data are based on a 2005 survey; since that time the country has embarked on major reforms. In nine countries social assistance worsened the index of inequality (increased the Gini index): Cambodia, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Senegal, Tajikistan, Tanzania, and Thailand. Table 2  Impact of Social Insurance Programs (number of countries) Percent reduction in poverty gap Percent reduction in Gini index Country classification 0–10 10.01–20 >20 0–3 3.01–6 >6 percent percent percent percent percent percent Low-income countries 14 6 1 9 1 1 Lower-middle-income countries 15 6 9 14 3 5 Upper-middle-income countries 7 10 15 15 2 11 High-income countries 0 0 8 0 0 8 Total 36 22 33 38 6 25 Source: Tabulated from World Bank (n.d.). Note: In all countries only the most current year is included. However, as the information is based on survey data there is often a lag. For example, Rwanda data are based on a 2005 survey; since that time the country has embarked on major reforms. In 23 countries social insurance worsened the index of inequality (increased the Gini index): Afghanistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador, The Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Paraguay, the Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste, as well as Colombia, Maldives, Mexico, and Peru among the upper-middle-income countries. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 7 Moreover, in 23 countries, even in some comparatively well-off nations, social insurance payments are regressive. That is, pensions and unemployment insurance increase the Gini index of inequality, even though these payments also reduce poverty in many countries. South Africa has achieved the largest proportional reduction in poverty with social assistance. Their combination of noncontributory pensions and child grants as well as the resources that an upper-middle-income country with a high priority to social assistance can bring to bear leads to more than a 70 percent reduction in the poverty gap in 2005. Countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia also manage sizable reductions in poverty—often above 50  percent—as well as reductions in inequality through social insurance. Many of these countries are former socialist economies, but Turkey has also reduced poverty appreciably; the proportional reduction in poverty in that country rose from 48 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2012. Overall, with a combination of social assistance and social insurance, low-­ income countries manage to close 18 percent of the poverty gap, and lower-­ middle-income countries achieve a 36 percent reduction. Upper-middle and upper-income countries manage to close their poverty gaps by 53 percent and 79 percent, respectively (World Bank n.d.). Reducing the poverty gap, how- ever, is not the same as reducing the number of poor, that is, headcount p­ overty. The former values transfers to any recipient below the poverty line while the latter—focusing on facilitating crossing the poverty line—emphasizes only those immediately below the line. Africa is at a particular disadvantage with regard to poverty reduction; less than 1 percent of Africans move beyond pov- erty as a result of transfers while more than 10 percent of the population in Eastern Europe does.2 Moreover, low- and lower-middle-income countries do not reduce inequality appreciably with these programs; on average they reduce the Gini measure of income inequality only by 1.4 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. In ­contrast, upper-middle and upper-income countries are more successful in reducing the measure of inequality. For the former the reduction is 7.3 percent, and for the latter it is 24.9 percent. As illustrated in figure 4, however, there is not a close relationship between safety net spending and success in poverty reduction. The figure ranks countries in order of the share of GNP allocated to social assistance and illustrates that some countries—for example, South Africa—can make significant reduction in headcount poverty with a relatively modest allocation of national resources while others devote far more of GNP and have little to show in terms of poverty reduction. The absence of a clear relationship between spending and poverty reduction points to the importance of how resources are spent as much as how much is expended. At all levels of national income, transfers achieve larger proportional reduc- tion in poverty gaps in urban areas than in rural. For example, the gap is reduced by 16.9 percent in urban areas of low-income countries but only by 7.2 percent among the rural population.3 The corresponding averages are 35.9 and 18.1 for lower-middle-income countries and 49.6 and 35.5 for upper-middle-income countries. In all groups of countries the per capita transfers in urban areas exceed that in rural areas. In both groups of 8 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Figure 4  Relationship of Safety Net Spending as a Share of GNP and Proportional Reduction in Poverty Headcount 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Countries ranked by share of GNP spent on social safety net programs Percent of GNP spent on social safety nets Percent reduction in poverty headcount Source: Calculated from data in World Bank (n.d.). Note: GNP = gross domestic product. middle-­ income countries the share of the poorest quintile receiving transfers in rural areas exceeds the share in urban. The opposite is the case in the poor- est countries. Thus, by this criteria, poor countries are somewhat more likely to address errors of exclusion. Two additional points are important to conclude this section. First, the relatively modest impact of transfers on poverty reduction in low-income ­ countries is not due to poor identification of households in need. Indeed, Fiszbein, Kanbur and Yemtsov (2014) find that low-income countries are more effective at targeting than lower-middle-income countries, which are, in turn, more effective than upper-income countries.4 Thus, the primary con- straint to greater impact on poverty in low-income countries appears to be the budget that can be mobilized. This  observation can be viewed as a tautology: Poor countries would Clearly poor countries would do better at poverty reduction if they were not poor. do better at poverty reduction A more practical implication, however, is that poor if they were not poor. A more countries have to be more s ­elective in program design than their more affluent counterparts. practical implication, however, Moreover, although it is instructive to assess the is that poor countries have to impact of social protection in terms of the transfers be more selective in program that are received by the poor as defined by the $1.25 poverty line or in terms of the share of resources design than their more affluent reached by the poorest quintile, neither of these counterparts. benchmarks is necessarily the goal of all countries’ programs. Countries may focus on a poverty line Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 9 different from the extreme poverty line used in international comparison, or coverage may be extended beyond the poorest quintile intentionally as  poverty is not always confined to that quintile. Coverage may also be wider for political-economy reasons to maintain sufficiently broad program support. 10 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Pathways from Social Protection to Nutrition A standard economic model of the production of health can illustrate how social protection can address the underlying determinants of malnutrition. Figure 5 shows indicative pathways whereby nutritionally vulnerable pop- ulations can be targeted through social protection programs. The programs’ effects on factors such as income, prices, and household behaviors change the degree to which families choose to invest in health and how they do it. Broader social norms and values will influence this decision making, as will available technology and services that promote health and the skills of households in applying them. This model is fully compatible with another useful heuristic view of nutrition that presents it as an outcome of food security, health, sani- tation, and care, with the role of income and prices serving to determine the level of food and health that is obtained (appendix A). This paper will first discuss the evidence on the impact of transfers on nutrition via the income pathway. Subsequent sections will discuss pathways mediated by price changes and by influences and behavior at the household level. Increasing Income A household that receives one dollar in transfers should increase consumption plus savings by virtually the same amount. Indeed, to a fair degree this is merely an accounting exercise, and it is surprising that many impact evaluations report this as a key finding. There is a possibility, however, that the availability of Figure 5  Indicative Pathways from Social Protection Programs to Nutrition Public Works e.g. poverty, 1000 days, women Prices Social norms and values CCT Subsidies Food Purchase quality, quantity Quotas Targeting UCT Conditions Nutrition Health Service Use Status In-kind Transfers Income Child Care School Feeding Behaviors Emergency Response Knowledge Preferences Program Pathway Mediator CCT = Conditional Cash Transfer Outcome UCT = Unconditional Cash Transfer Source: Harold Alderman and SecureNutrition. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 11 Box 1  Social Protection and Obesity The programs reviewed in this paper are designed to transfer income to low-income families and generally are expected to contribute to reductions in undernutrition by increasing purchasing power, either through increasing income or decreasing food prices. But, in fact, the poor are also at risk of overweight/obesity, and low birth weight and stunting are associated with increased body mass indices (BMI) and chronic illness. Indeed, a recent review of obesity poses the ­question as to whether the problem is “overweight or underheight?” (Lobstein et al. 2015). In the short run, however, transfer programs can exacerbate overnutrition while aiming to reduce undernutrition. For example, Fernald, Gertler, and Hou (2009) found that Oportunidades, the successor to PROGRESA, led to higher BMI as well as higher blood pressure. Forde et al. (2012) found a similar risk for BMI in Colombia’s transfer program. The one study that assessed whether in-kind distribution had a different impact on obesity than cash—in this case, in a study of women in the same Mexican program studied by Cunha, de Giorgi, and Jayachandran (2011)— found that both forms of support led to increased weight gain relative to the control group with no significant difference (Leroy et al. 2013). a transfer will reduce nontransfer income due to either changes in remittances or changes in labor allocation. Regarding the former, a number of studies doc- ument that public transfers partially crowd out private transfers (Jensen 2004; Cox, Hansen, and Jimenez 2004). Factors that influence private transfers include migration of family members as well as the timing of transitory shocks. Clearly, only elderly who receive remittances from children can have these par- tially crowded out by a social pension. This association can be incorporated into targeting criteria. The converse—the possibility that an individual receiving a transfer may pass some of the assistance to other family members or to neighbors—is also potentially important for policy. In both cases, the indirect effect of transfers on the linked household may be a second-round effect of the transfer on poverty reduction if the linked household is also poor or has malnourished members. This pass-through has been an issue in the design of transfers to caregivers of orphans, who are often—albeit not always—at heightened risk of undernutrition. In principal coresidency is not necessary for a transfer to one individual to be shared with another. In practice shared custody strengthens While this result clearly intergenerational linkages. supports the view that women For example, Duflo (2003) found that the grand- and men have different patterns children of recipients of South Africa’s relatively gen- erous pension program benefit indirectly from old of investment, it does not age pension transfers. The finding has been used to imply that a pension transfer motivate social pensions as a pillar of child support. is necessarily a good vehicle for Many countries emulate the successful South African Old Age pension, but given limited budgets for low- improving child nutrition. and middle-­ income countries such a priority may 12 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary crowd out funds for younger children, which is an important consideration— given 1,000 days window of opportunity—if long-term health and develop- ment outcomes are a priority. Duflo found that pensions only received by women had a significant impact on the nutritional status of their grandchil- dren, and no impact was found for relatives of male pensioners. This result clearly supports the view that women and men have different patterns of investment, but it does not imply that a pension transfer is necessarily a good vehicle for improving child nutrition. In fact, only 46 percent of pensioners—either male or female—lived with their grandchildren, and the positive nutritional impact was observed only if the woman’s grandchild was a girl. Thus, a child grant will have a different impact on income growth than old age pensions. An old age pension will support consumption, but a child grant will also support investment at a greater rate. South Africa has proven to be able to afford both transfer pro- grams at meaningful levels; other countries, however, may have to confront the difficult choice of prioritization of recipient groups head-on. Evidence on the impact of transfers on labor supply is also often misap- plied and taken out of context. While economists generally consider welfare to include both the consumption of leisure and goods, governments gener- ally are uncomfortable with increases in the former prompted by transfer programs. This discomfort may be due to political economy reasons for sup- port for programs, which may be greater if the poor increase rather than reduce their effort. Often the concern is about withdrawal from the active labor force rather than a marginal increase in leisure by individuals working nearly full time. Reductions in overall adult labor supply attributable to safety nets are minor (Alderman and Yemtsov 2014; Grosh et al. 2008).5 The mispercep- tion that social assistance has an appreciable effect on labor earnings may reflect the fact that unemployment insurance programs sometimes do increase the duration of unemployment and of search efforts by recipients (Sanchez-Parramo 2002; van Ours and Vodopivec 2006). However, extrap- olation of this evidence on social insurance to noncontributory transfer programs is not generally warranted. Social insurance programs are often relatively generous compared to social assistance. For example, social insur- ance programs, such as those common in Eastern Europe in transition to market economies, have provided support up to 100 percent of formal sec- tor wages over long periods of time, years in some cases. In contrast, other transfer programs are generally less than half of a poverty line income— often far less—and thus not capable of supporting a family without addi- tional employment. Labor may, however, be reallocated as an indirect consequence of the tar- geting criteria for a safety net. De Brauw et al. (2015) note that even though Brazil’s cash transfer, Bolsa Familia, had no disincentive effects on aggregate labor supply, it did prompt a reallocation from formal sector employment to informal activities, presumably as the latter were not a focus of means testing. How this affects long-term poverty alleviation and growth depends on the relative productivity in the sectors. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 13 To summarize the evidence of the net impact of transfers on expenditures: there may be a small and localized reduction in income due to transfers, but few reductions in income due to labor reallocation. Set against these modest potential reductions, there are often increases in income, particularly in agri- culture, due to relaxing credit constraints (Sadoulet, de Janvry, and Davis 2001) and, over a longer term, increased capital investments (Hoddinott et al. 2012) and protection from disinvestments due to shocks.6 Therefore, although heterogeneous effects need to be monitored, there is little worry that safety nets are generally a disincentive on earnings. Assuming, then, an increase of overall expenditures—earned plus unearned income—proportional to the transfer, what is the expected impact of the added resources on nutrition? Society often does not value all consumption equally. Public statements on transfer programs often indicate that govern- ments implicitly or explicitly value certain forms of household consumption by their recipients differently than they do other choices. In particular, from the perspective of nutrition-sensitive safety nets, there is an interest in pro- moting the consumption of high-quality food and in investments in health. Given the plethora of household data sets to which can be applied more than 50 years of research on measuring income elasticities, the impact of a cash transfer on expenditures can be well estimated even in the absence of a formal controlled study. But the question of interest is not whether food consumption goes up; that is cer- [T]he question of interest tain. Rather, the question of interest for food and nutrition policy is whether the increased purchases for food and nutrition policy after receiving a transfer are greater than the expected is whether the increased increase of purchases at that income level based on purchases after receiving a general income.7 transfer are greater than the This question is often answered with a yes. That is, in many programs the availability of a food-oriented expected increase of purchases transfer—even one that provides cash but is per- at that income level based on ceived as linked to food security—nudges consumers general income. to increase the share of their additional budget devoted to food. For example, cash transfers in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Nicaragua led to more expenditures on food and health than was observed with increases in general sources of income even when the programs were only indirectly linked to nutrition and health (Attanasio, Battistin, and Mesnard 2012). Similar findings have been noted in studies of the food stamp program in the United States (Breunig and Dasgupta 2005), indicative of how developed countries make use of nutrition-oriented social protection programs; in the United States, these include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This heightened impact may be an example of labeling (Kooreman 2000) by which participation in a program influences households’ spending patterns either latently or explicitly with social marketing. Other studies attribute changes in expenditure patterns to a combination of gender ­ control—many transfer programs earmark women as recipients (Haddad, Hoddinott, and 14 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Alderman 1997; Duflo 2003). For example, Angelucci and Attanasio (2013) conclude that handing transfers to women likely accounts for the observed changes in food consumption. Increases in expenditures on food are generally larger than the propor- tional increase in quantities of food. Most studies find that the proportional increase in calories with respect to income (calorie elasticity) to be smaller than the elasticity of total food expenditures (Behrman and Deolalikar 1987; Subramanian and Deaton 1996). A rough rule of thumb is that in low-income settings, food expenditure elasticities are approximately twice the calorie elas- ticity. The difference between these two measurements is an indication of both changes in diet composition and in quality. However, food security is not identical to nutrition security, and neither food expenditures nor calorie elasticities are sufficient indicators of changes in inputs to nutrition mediated by income. Other factors that contribute to nutrition status, such as access to care as well as water and sanitation, may also respond to changes in household income or expenditures. Therefore, it is instructive to look at the degree to which anthropometric indicators of nutri- tional status respond to changes expenditures. For example, Ruel and Alderman (2013) indicate that a 10 percent growth of GNP results in nearly a 10 percent decline in poverty but only a 5.9 percent decline in stunting, an estimate close to the 6.3 percent reported in Smith and Haddad (2015). Similar cross-country estimates indicate that severe anemia among children, defined as hemoglobin below 7 g/dL, declines at 9 percent with 10 percent income growth although the decline for mother was smaller at 6.5 percent (Alderman and Linnemayr 2009). Anemia defined as hemoglobin levels below 10.9 grams per deciliter (g/dL) declines at a slower rate; improving income by 10 percent would decrease child anemia by only 2.4 percent (and maternal anemia by 1.8 percent). These results can be triangulated using household data. Haddad et al. (2003) found that the Millennium Development Goals indicator of rates of underweight children less than five years old declined at half the rate that GDP grew based on the average of 12 household surveys, all of which were collected in the 1990s. The household data, then, show a nutritional response to income similar to the data across countries. These and similar results have been used to argue that countries should not expect income growth alone to solve malnutrition in a generation (Alderman 2010).8 New results are consistent with that conclusion; indeed,  such data seem to point to reductions in stunting of 6 percent with a 10 percent increase in income as an upper range of expectations for the impact of transfer programs. The motivation for These and similar results reappraising these ­estimates is based in part on inter- have been used to argue that preting country fixed effects estimates as long-run countries should not expect results. Smith and Haddad (2015) indicate that when they use first differences spanning only five years— income growth alone to solve compared to the average 20-year span in their overall malnutrition in a generation. fixed effect estimates—they estimate that a 10 per- cent growth in income implies only a 1.7 percent Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 15 decline in stunting. They point out that these smaller elasticities are in keep- ing with some other estimates in the literature and ­suggest that the differences reflect long- and short-term response. Furthermore, while South Asia has had robust income growth in recent years, the region has not been able to translate that growth into reduction in stunting consistent with the estimates from data across countries. For exam- ple, India with the largest number of malnourished children in the world and a rapidly growing economy, appears to have a smaller than average improve- ment in nutrition with its growth. Even Bangladesh, which has one of the most rapid reductions in stunting in recent years, might have expected greater than the 20 percent reduction between 1997 and 2011, a period when income per capita roughly doubled.9 …both conditional cash More central to this review is that studies of both conditional cash transfers (CCTs), which tie eligibil- transfers (CCTs) and ity for transfers with participation in specified health unconditional cash transfers and schooling activities, and unconditional cash (UCTs) have not delivered transfers (UCTs) have not delivered improvements in nutrition commensurate with their success in improvements in nutrition addressing poverty. Despite the proven ability to commensurate with their transfer purchasing power to low-income families success in addressing poverty. and to encourage increased utilization of health ser- vices (Ranganathan and Lagarde 2012; Haines and Palmer 2007; Gaarder, Glassman, and Palmer 2010), on average the impact of CCTs and UCTs on anthropometric measures of nutritional status is small (Ruel and Alderman 2013; Manley, Gitter and Slavchevska 2013). Similarly, a significant reduction in anemia was found in only one of the three country programs reviewed by Leroy, Ruel, and Verhofstadt (2009). De Groot et al. (2015), using a less restrictive filter to review cash transfers than Manley, Gitter and Slavchevska or Ruel and Alderman, do find some limited success in improving nutrition with transfer programs but reach similar conclusions as to the limitations and the reasons for them as in the current review. There are various possible reasons for the limited path from social assis- tance to nutritional outcomes. Foremost among them is that poverty target- ing does not necessarily have a nutrition focus. Much of the research on CCTs has been from countries in Latin America where the prevalence of stunting is far less than in Africa or South Asia. Moreover, a share of social assistance is targeted to poor households with few if any young children, for example, old age pensions as well as support to school-age children. Even when social assistance programs have a young child orientation, the transfers are not necessarily targeted to households with children in the most vulnerable 1,000 day period from conception to a child’s second birthday; that is, eligibility does not always align with the time of greatest growth veloc- ity. This may dilute the actual response and, further, mask measured results. For example, Linnemayr and Alderman (2011) find an insignificant impact of a randomized trial—albeit not a cash transfer—when children 0 to 5 years are measured but a statistically significant impact when one focuses on the younger children only.10 In addition, as mentioned, estimated elasticities from 16 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary cross-country or cross-sectional household data may obscure the time frame and provide an overly optimistic expectation for the impact of the increased household resources. Subsidies, Quotas, Prices, and Conditions Until relatively recently, governments were as—or more—likely to support consumption by low-income households through price supports and in-kind transfers than through cash assistance. A range of motives coincided in this policy preference (Pinstrup-Andersen 1988). For example, subsidies and in-kind transfers can be a practical means to offset producer price subsidies and procurement policies or—as in past years—to recycle food aid.11 More central to the issue of nutrition-sensitive social protection is that despite the well-known economic argument favoring income transfers as less distortive of preferences than price subsidies or in-kind assistance, many governments actually have explicit goals of encouraging increased expendi- tures on food. However, to have a price subsidy influence the amount of subsidized food that is purchased, it is necessary that (1) there is no restric- tion on the amount purchased, or (2) any quota on subsidized allowance is greater than the amount that would have been purchased in the absence of the program. If the subsidized quota is smaller than what the consumer would have pur- chased at unsubsidized prices, the subsidy acts only as an income transfer; the open market price, not the lower subsidized price, determines the house- hold’s decision of how much to purchase. This restricted transfer is referred to as an inframarginal support. The value to the consumer is equal to the quota multiplied the difference between the subsidized price and the open market price. There are natural barriers to the nutritional impacts of a price subsidy. Even if there is no quota on the amount a household can purchase the income sup- port provided via a price subsidy is based on budget share to the subsidized commodity. Commodities with relatively large shares of a household budget tend to be price inelastic; that is, they are commodities for which a lower price does not induce a major change in the commodity consumed.12 When there are close substitutes for a subsidized commodity, the net impact on diet is complex. Although a lower price on a good can lead to increased consump- tion of that item, it may also induce a partially compensating reduction in another good. Thus, the net impact of a subsidy on total energy, protein, or vitamin consumption is indeterminate (Pitt 1983). Lower prices on basic grains in China and India have been shown to have little impact on net energy consumption, in the latter …the net impact of a subsidy on case due to substitution of rice and wheat for greater amounts of coarse grains by consumers in areas total energy, protein, or vitamin where rice and wheat were not the main source of consumption is indeterminate. calories (Jensen and Miller 2011; Kaushal and Muchomba 2015). In contrast, a tax exemption on Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 17 maize in South Africa increased calories from that grain as well as bread and beans (Alderman and del Ninno 1999). Until recent improvements in the technology for cash transfers became widespread (and for the targeting that is necessary in any cash-based sup- port), price subsidies had some administrative advantages. Generalized price subsidies could in some circumstances be applied at the point of import through dual exchange rates or indirectly financed through taxes on produc- ers by means of mandatory procurement quotas. The incidence of transfers on generalized untargeted food subsidies, however, is often regressive.13 Even consumption of staples such as grains and pulses generally increase as incomes go up so that the total expenditure on subsides is higher in upper-income groups in absolute terms even if the support is higher as a share of the expen- ditures of the poor. For commodities such as milk and oil, the share relative to the income of the rich may even be higher than the corresponding share for the poor. Only a few commodities—such as maize flour in South Africa or certain grades of flour in the Arab Republic of Egypt—are self-­ targeted such that a subsidy on that good is progressive, and these subsidies generally trans- fer only a small amount of purchasing power (Alderman and Lindert 1998) and thus provide little direct impact on food nutrition through an income pathway. Often there are quotas on the amount of a commodity that can be pur- chased at a subsidized price. In contrast to generalized subsidies marketed extensively, quotas are often distributed through specialized shops, either government administered outlets or privately owned licensed retailers. Generally when quotas are in place there is a legal open market from which a consumer can obtain additional amounts of the food at a higher price. This two-tier market sets up an incentive for diverting grain from the quota to the higher priced open market (Alderman 1988; Mehta and Jha 2014). Although such sales are sometimes termed “back door sales,” they may occur at the wholesale or warehouse level as well as from retail outlets. Clearly, such diversion of subsidies will result in large share of the budget allocated to subsidies having no impact on the poor. ­ Cash versus In-Kind Transfers There is little conceptual difference between the marketing of subsidized goods on quota and free distribution in-kind. The motivation for either mode of delivery is often similar, and the need for government involvement in trans- port and storage, at least at the wholesale level, is similar. With the expansion of cash transfers, there has been a renewed interest in comparing this mode of assistance to the alternative of in-kind support in order to ascertain both the difference in consumer behavior and in the costs of different programs. One general difference between administering cash transfers and in-kind support is that the former is less costly to deliver than food. For example, four randomized trials supported by the World Food Program found that it cost roughly $3 per cash transfer, while the cost per food transfer of equivalent value was two to four times as large (Gentilini 2016; Margolies and Hoddinott 2015; 18 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Hidrobo et al. 2014). Moreover, increasing the value of One general difference between the transfer would do little to change the cost per administering cash transfers transaction—thus costs per dollar transfer declined and in-kind support is that markedly with value.14 This is not the case with food. particular levels of transfers in the four studies, At the ­ the former are less costly to an additional 13 percent to 23 percent of households deliver than food. could have been reached if the food transfers were in cash instead. Additionally, Margolies and Hoddinott (2015) note that depending on the location of the dis- tribution sites, some costs are shifted from the government to consumers for waiting and for transport. The impact of market performance has been a perennial theme of studies of food assistance. If markets are well connected, targeted in-kind assistance is unlikely to affect the price of traded commodities, nor would additional cash put pressure on local market prices. This is an issue for producers as well as consumers; farm gate prices are less likely to be depressed with food transfers when markets are integrated. Similarly, market integration and inexpensive transportation implies that local purchases have little impact on the revenue that a producer receives at the farm gate; in such cases prices are determined by a wider market than the local catchment. The converse is also true: tertiary markets may be sensitive to changes in local demand. For example, in a randomized trial in communi- ties in Mexico that were too remote to be included in the national cash trans- fer program, PROGRESA, Cunha, de Giorgi, and Jayachandran (2011) found that cash transfers led to higher prices locally and a purchasing power loss for program participants amounting to 11 percent relative to those who received an in-kind transfer of similar value. In this case the commodities offered were largely processed food items and, perhaps, less competitively marketed in these communities than basic grains.15 Other randomized trials such as that of Aker et al. (2011) have not found cash transfers to inflate grain prices.16 Studies already noted (Gentilini 2015; Margolies and Hoddinott 2015; Hidrobo et al. 2014) also collectively point to a few differences in the response of consumers with cash generally leading to greater diet diversity but not nec- essarily more calories consumed. These differences were highly dependent on context, including the availability of seasonal storage and the degree of mar- ket integration. Regarding the former, although in general, cash allows for greater diet diversification, in Niger during a seasonal hunger gap households receiving food resorted to fewer harmful coping strategies and had higher measures of food security and dietary diversity compared to households receiving cash. In this particular example, households receiving cash spent significantly more on purchases of bulk grains (in part to protect against sea- sonal price increases) and on repairing their households as well as on agricul- tural inputs (Hoddinott, Sandstrom, and Upton 2014). Cunha (2014) observes that most of the 10 commodities in the in-kind distribution program in Mexico substituted for similar goods that would otherwise have been purchased. Nevertheless, the i ­ n-kind distribution ­ increased micronutrient ­ consumption. In this case the impact was attributed Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 19 to the extramarginal inclusion of iron and zinc forti- fied milk powder. However, this is likely to be a gen- [T]his is likely to be a general eral result for any program in which a fortified result for any program in commodity is provided if the alternative foods which a fortified commodity is obtained from the market are not similarly enriched; in-kind distributions can be sensitive to nutrition provided if the alternative foods when they are vehicles for food fortification. obtained from the market are Although Cunha (2014) noted that these foods not similarly enriched; in-kind cost substantially more to distribute than cash trans- distributions can be sensitive to fers—and questioned whether the benefits in terms of micronutrient intake justified these costs—it is not nutrition when they are vehicles necessarily the case that in-kind transfers will for food fortification. increase costs appreciably. For example, in Gujarat, India, iron fortified flour was substituted for wheat grain in the public distribution system with marked improvement in iron intakes at an incremental cost of only $0.48 per ton (Fiedler et al. 2012). School feeding programs also have this capacity. Another logistical advantage of in-kind programs is that the items distrib- uted retain their real value in the face of price fluctuations and inflation. To be sure, cash transfers can be adjusted administratively, as Brazil did when prices rose rapidly in 2008, but doing so depends on an executive decision—one that is awkward to reverse if food prices retreat. In contrast, in-kind transfers are intrinsically protected from devaluation. Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux (2010) documented the extensive temporal and spatial differences in the value of cash and in-kind public-work wages in Ethiopia between 2006 and 2008, a period of extensive food price volatility. Although the authors did not track these differences on their impact on nutrition, they did show that par- ticipants who received wages wholly or partially as food reduced their food deficits more than those who received wages in cash, despite an increase in nominal cash wages in 2008. More specific to the issue of nutrition-sensitive interventions is that despite context specificity of …despite context specificity in-kind transfers compared to cash in overall house- ­ of in-kind transfers compared hold purchases, the former seem to have a particu- to cash in overall household lar  role in improving child nutrition. For example, Behrman and Hoddinott (2005) found no overall purchases, the former seem impact on nutritional status of PROGRESA when to have a particular role in looking at program eligibility. They did observe that improving child nutrition. after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity cor- related with actual access to the program’s supplemen- tary food (not all eligible children had such access), there was a significant positive and fairly substantial reduction in stunting among children 12 to 36 months old who received the supplements. The reduction was greatest among the poorest families with functionally literate women present. Ramirez-Silva et al. (2013) also found that increased dietary intake from the food supplements in PROGRESA, rather than other aspects of improved home diets of the young children within the household, contributed to 20 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Box 2  Emergency Response and Nutrition in Indonesia Giles and Satriawan (2015) illustrate a potential for in-kind distribution in a financial emergency. They showed that supplementary feeding provided to children 6 to 60 months old by the govern- ment of Indonesia in response to the 1998 economic crisis benefited children 12 to –24 months old but did not improve stunting for either younger or older children. This finding reflects both age-specific health risks and difference in daily food allocation. The overall effect was a reduction in the likelihood of stunting by 15 percent. improvement in anemia. The group that received supplements also consumed more retinol and zinc. The study, however, did not analyze the reasons that one group of participants consumed the supplements and another did not. Similarly, Meller and Litschig (2014) found that a conditional in-kind supplement in Ecuador reduced mortality. ­ It is debatable whether this type of program can be considered a nutrition- sensitive safety net or a nutrition-specific intervention. Nevertheless, a range of nutrition-specific supplementation programs have been shown to affect nutritional outcomes (see, for example, Hoddinott et al. 2013). Emergency Settings The core issue determining the role of in-kind distribution in a nutrition-­ sensitive emergency response is quite similar to the central consideration in a nonemergency setting—much revolves around how well markets are function- ing. When grain can flow to areas of shortfall unhindered, famines can often be viewed as the consequence of limited purchasing power, rather than food shortages per se (Sen 1981). Still, until relatively recently, logistics as well as the availability of food aid favored in-kind distribution in response to a range of natural disasters and conflict situations. However, as with programs designed to address chronic poverty, the recent trend has been to respond to emergencies with cash assistance (Harvey 2007; Pelham, Clay, and Braunholz 2011).17 Whether cash or in-kind, the primary objective in emergency response is to provide resources to affected families, often with a broader targeting criteria than used for social assistance designed for chronically poor. Programs also seek to prevent the nonpoor from losing assets and falling into a poverty trap (Sumarto, Suryahadi, and Pritchett 2003). Nevertheless, it is also the case that short-term crises influence both mortality of children and the long-term health and economic prospects of survivors (Alderman, Hoddinott, and Kinsey 2006). As emergency relief is generally designed to meet the needs of households rather than to meet the dietary needs of the most vulnerable children, efforts have been made to enhance the nutritional impacts by including: (1) micro- nutrient fortification of grains and fortification of vegetable oil; (2) iodized salt in general food deliveries; and (3) specialized nutritious products for vul- nerable individuals (Webb et al. 2014). Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 21 By including fortified blended foods, micronutrient powders, and lipid-­ based nutrient supplements (LNS)18 in the package of assistance to families, such programs in effect use an emergency social protection response as a platform for a nutrition-specific intervention, in keeping with one recom- ­ mendation for enhancing nutrition sensitivity (Ruel and Alderman 2013). Evidence on the effectiveness of these various additions to standard emer- gency response is often indirect. For example, randomized trials have been employed to assess the cost effectiveness of LNS for treatment of acute malnu- trition, but much of the evidence on LNS on the prevention of malnutrition comes from seasonal shortfalls and slow onset scarcity (Webb et al. 2015; Grellety et al. 2012; Huybregts et al. 2012). Conditional Cash Transfers Just as price subsidies change the cost of goods, the goal of increasing invest- ments in human capital is often fostered by adding a requirement that the beneficiary household participate in designated health care activities to be eligible to receive program benefits (Fiszbein and Schady 2009). In effect, the requirements necessary to qualify for these CCTs change the relative price of investments while at the same time increase the overall budget envelope for recipients. This is motivated, in part, by the assumption that poor households underinvest relative to a social optimum (Das, Do, Özler 2005). Critics of CCTs sometimes argue that poor households know what they need and if they have not made the investments it is because they are cash constrained. From this perspective, adding conditions is an unnecessary bur- den and one that may restrict transfers to poor households that do not have members that qualify for the educational or early nutritional requirements. This latter concern places the equity motive of the transfer in contrast to the investment goal (Alderman and Yemtsov 2014). Conditional transfers, however, may address market failures including differences in voice within ­ the household of children or women who benefit from the investments or imperfect information on the benefits of these investments (Baird et al. 2014). Moreover, if there are positive externalities for health investments, then the socially optimal level of participation exceeds what the household would choose without additional incentives.19 The evidence indicates that CCTs virtually always augment household food consumption and dietary The evidence indicates that diversity as well as increase participation in preven- conditional cash transfer tive health care. How much is due to the cash transfer programs (CCTs) virtually and how much reflects the conditions for eligibility? UCTs generally also achieve increased food con- always augment household sumption but may have smaller impacts on health food consumption and dietary care. However, despite the strong views in the litera- diversity as well as increase ture about the relative values of CCTs and UCTs, participation in preventive direct comparisons of CCTs and UCTs are rare and  those that have been conducted are generally health care. concerned with education. 22 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary One of the few such direct comparisons concerning health care in Burkina Faso found that CCTs—but not UCTs—increased visits to preventive health services (Akresh, De Walque and Kazianga 2012). Another comparison from Zimbabwe also found few differences other than greater registrations of births with a CCT, (Robertson et al. 2013) but did not track nutritional outcomes. In contrast, Attanasio et al. (2015) found that conditions make a large difference in health facility attendance and on child health. A full pol- icy relevant comparison of programs should also study costs of delivery, including the resource costs (e.g., time allocation) that households need to invest to meet conditions. Thus, evidence that CCTs increase health service utilization at a higher rate than UCTs does not necessarily imply that they are a more cost-effective approach for meeting this objective. Actually, it is unlikely that UCTs have no element of soft conditions; that is, few transfers are devoid of any beliefs held by the recipient of what is expected of them in return for receiving the ­ transfer. Thus, most UCTs have an element of what has been termed labeling (Kooreman 2000) or more recently, a  nudge (Benhassine et al. 2013). CCTs may also have a second-round impact in terms of accountability and inducing demand for improved health and nutrition services. For exam- ple, Barber and Gertler (2010) found an improve- CCTs may also have a second ment in the birth weight of children born to women round impact in terms of eligible for Oportunidades yet did not find an increase in attendance at prenatal centers. This out- accountability and inducing come, according to the authors, stemmed entirely demand for improved health from an improvement in the quality of services—an and nutrition services. improvement they attributed not to additional financial resources provided to the clinics but rather ­ to the empowerment of the recipient women, who demanded better services. The issue of service quality is a generic concern covering basic a range of health services for children as well as being relevant in regards to increased access to education. If, in the case of CCTs for young children, a household is required to have their offspring weighed and mea- sured, the family benefits little if this information is not then used to inform growth promotion and counseling. Service quality is, however, often the Achilles heel of CCT programs. One of the most common coresponsibility in CCT programs is attendance in growth monitoring and promotion sessions. However, it is not clear that growth promotion is regularly practiced at the community level. This is cru- cial. A comprehensive review of global experience concluded that growth monitoring has little or no effect on nutritional status in large-scale programs with weak nutrition counseling (Ashworth, Shrimpton, and Jamil 2008, 86–117). The tendency to measure results in terms of easily quantifiable weighing sessions rather than in terms of counseling sessions creates risk for incentive structures for both the households and for the training and staffing of health care personnel. As noted, the increase service utilization observed in both CCT and UCT programs does not always translate to measured improvements in Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 23 nutritional outcomes. However, Rasella et al. (2013) linked CCT coverage in Brazil with municipal mortality data using fixed-effects regression analysis and observed that as coverage increased, under-five mortality declined. Similarly, a drop in deaths attributed to malnutrition was associated with the program’s availability. The analysis also accounted for the rollout of a program to provide free community-based health care and found that the reduction in overall mortality was greatest where both programs had wide- spread coverage. In a similar study using municipal data, Barham (2011) found that PROGRESA reduced infant mortality as program coverage increased; mor- tality declined by 17 percent in rural areas with full coverage and by 8 percent overall. Moreover, the subset of deaths attributed to nutritional deficiencies was found to decline significantly even though this trend contributed less to overall reductions in infant mortality than did the changes in intestinal infec- tions or respiratory diseases. The study, however, did not find a statistically significant reduction in neonatal mortality.20 Tracking another nutritional outcome, Amarante et al. (2012) found a 15  percent to 17 percent reduction in low birth weight attributable to an unconditional transfer program implemented in Uruguay between April 2005 and December 2007 in response to a contraction in GNP of 10 percent. The study used administrative microdata matched to longitudinal vital statistics on the universe of births. The authors also indicated that the transfer increased household income by at least 25 percent, implying an income elasticity for low birth weight of approximately −0.6. This is nearly three times the magni- tude of the elasticity for the reduction in low birth weight (−0.228) reported in the online appendix to Ruel and Alderman (2013). The study did not report the attendant changes in purchases financed by this transfer or in health ser- vices demanded, although they ruled out the possibility that the improvement in birth weight was due to significant changes in health-seeking behavior. They flagged both reduced stress and reduced labor supply as possible con- tributors to the outcomes measured, implying a role of the transfer beyond that of earned income. In addition, vouchers and CCTs have been used to promote utilization of antenatal care and improve basic obstetric care (Bhutta et al. 2014). While the principal objective of such programs is to reduce maternal and neonatal mor- tality, they have the potential to affect birth weight via distribution of multiple micronutrient supplementation and, in some cases, balanced protein supple- mentation at clinics (Bhutta et al. 2014). Institutional deliveries also can affect nutrition through the promotion of breastfeeding immediately after delivery. However, the limited research on CCTs for antenatal care and institutional delivery—mainly studying India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana program (trans- lated as safe motherhood scheme)—have focused on maternal mortality rather than birth weight or subsequent child development (Randive, Diwan, and De Costa 2013; Lim et al. 2010). The available evidence indicates that the financial support encourages ­utilization of obstetric services, but such care is associated with only a modest reduction in perinatal and neonatal mortality, possibly because the quality of 24 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary facility care provided was low (Bhutta et al. 2014). Additionally, the commu- nity motivators are prompted OR moved by the number of deliveries not the full range of antenatal care. School Feeding Programs School feeding can be viewed as a form of in-kind Although impacts on enrollment transfer that is conditional on school attendance. and attendance are regularly Despite the conceptual overlap with CCTs, however, noted with such programs, the school feeding programs differ in administration and targeting. Generally offered as meals or snacks but nutritional sensitivity of school also as take home rations (THR), school feeding pro- feeding programs is often over- grams reach 375 million children annually at a cost stated (Alderman and Bundy of $75 billion. Per child costs range from $54 aver- aged over low-income countries to $693 in more 2012) while the nutritional developed countries (Gelli and Daryanan 2013). potential is often under-utilized. Although impacts on enrollment and attendance are regularly noted with such programs, the­nutritional sensitivity of school feeding programs is often overstated (Alderman and Bundy 2012), and the nutritional potential is often ­ under-utilized. Meta-analyses of school feeding programs for schoolchildren aged 5 to 19 find that these programs generally increase weight gain (Kristjansson et al. 2007). This result is not an unambiguous benefit because in many countries, particularly in Latin America, school feeding programs aim to address obe- sity. This goal has had some level of success, particularly when integrated with appropriate curricula and with programs to promote activity (Verstraeten et al. 2012). Although improvements in stature are less common in school feed- ing programs, Singh, Park, and Dercon (2014) found that school feeding in India apparently reversed the impact on stunting due to a severe drought. Bóo and Canon (2013) also noted that this gain was attended by an improvement in cognitive scores that could close a quarter of the gap between low and high caste students. Standard household models would predict that a student’s food intake at home would be partially reduced to compensate or partially offset his or her access to school meals, indirectly sharing the program. Such realloca- tion is not universally observed (Afridi 2010), but often school meal administrators are concerned about the addition of This concern may be misplaced meals to a child’s diet. This concern may be mis- placed because school feeding programs improve since school feeding programs overall household food access and can benefit other improve overall household children in food insecure settings. This scenario food access and can benefit would be most likely when students are provided THRs. This form of food for education was found other children in food to  improve the nutrtional status of the younger insecure settings. siblings of students in Burkina Faso (Kazianga, de ­ Walque and Alderman 2014). Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 25 Improved cognitive ability is one way by which school meals may influence learning. Additionally the availability of school meals may influence learning outcomes through their influence on classroom attendance. Moreover, reduced hunger may have a short-term impact on attention in the classroom, which may also mediate between school meals and learning outcomes. All three channels have been shown to contribute to school outcome in various settings (Adelman, Gilligan, and Lehrer 2008). As with health, the impact of a school meal program hinges, in part, on the quality of the educational services; in Jamaica, classroom behavior improved in the better organized classroom and deteriorated elsewhere (Grantham- McGregor, Chang, and Walker 1998). The impact also depends on the timing; school breakfasts may have a very different impact on hunger and thus on classroom performance than do lunches. Unlike the case of balanced protein and energy supplementation for which the benefits are most apparent in the 1,000-day window from conception to a child’s second birthday, benefits of micronutrient supplementation are well documented for school age children. Numerous studies have confirmed that school meals can improve micronutrient status (Best et al. 2011). One meta-analysis concluded that iron supplementation was particularly effective in regard to intelligence tests for children between 7 and 15 years of age (the upper limit of the ages in the review) and for children who were initially ane- mic or iron-deficient anemic (Sachdev, Gera, and Nestel 2005). More recently, Luo et al. (2012) recorded increased math scores in a randomize trial of iron supplementation in schools in China. Additional benefits of improved micronutrient status are likely for adoles- cent girls. It is increasingly apparent that reaching young women with iron and folate prior to preg- nancy can have public health benefits (Bhutta et al. Unlike the case of balanced 2013). With girls’ schooling grows, school meals offer protein and energy one platform to deliver micronutrients to this age supplementation for which group. Improvements in micronutrient status via school the benefits are most apparent feeding may be achieved through comparatively in the 1000 day window expensive diet diversity, often involving animal prod- from conception to a child’s ucts (Neumann et al. 2003). Improvements in micro- nutrient status can also be attained by direct second birthday, benefits of fortification of a staple. Most commonly wheat flour micronutrient supplementation or corn soy blend is fortified with iron, and even are well documented for extruded rice is a potential vehicle for fortification school-aged children. (Moretti et al. 2006). In another example, biscuits fortified with iron and iodine were found to reduce absenteeism as well as to improve some dimensions of cognitive function relative to a similar snack without fortification (van Stuijvenberg et al. 1999). As the control group also received a snack, the impact of the fortification was additional to the unmeasured impact of the provision of food at the start of the school day. A trial in Uganda revealed that there may be little difference between school meals and take home rations as 26 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary a vehicle for fortification. Both delivery mechanisms contributed to a 20 per- centage points decline in anemia prevalence for treated adolescent girls rela- tive to the control group (Adelman et al. 2015). The underutilized nutrition potential of school feeding varies, however. Not all programs include fortification with iron, and even fewer fortify with folate, although this could be achieved even with snacks, and anemia could be addressed with concurrent supplementation programs (Luo et al. 2012). Breakfasts or even snacks may also achieve the goal of increasing attention in the classroom and may prove suitable in programs where the school day is short. Another approach to increasing the nutritional effectiveness is the use of THR or a combination of targeted THR and meals. Education on the prevention of obesity is included While it may be particularly in some schools, but few link their programs to edu- cation on diets for the children that most of the stu- suited for increasing diet dents will be raising. Similarly, complementary diversity and inclusion of media campaigns to reinforce nutritional messages— vegetables into meal programs, as has been undertaken in Ghana—can enhance the behavioral change component of school feeding. locally sourced school feeding However, nutrition is only one of the objectives of is not necessarily flexible for school feeding programs (Alderman and Bundy chronically food insecure areas 2012). In addition to the educational objective and or to respond to seasonal the contribution of school feeding to household food security, is an emphasis on increasing incomes for shortages or local shocks. local farmers. This goal is dependent on market structure (Sumberg and Sabates-Wheeler 2011) and needs assessment at scale. While it may be particu- larly suited for increasing diet diversity and inclusion of vegetables into meal programs, locally sourced school feeding is not necessarily flexible for chron- ically food insecure areas or to respond to seasonal shortages or local shocks. It also imposes challenges for food fortification—often undertaken at central- ized processing—although micronutrient mixes can be added to meal prepa- ration even with locally sourced commodities. Preferences and Behavior Many of the elements of a CCT that could be linked to improved nutritional outcomes are not direct results of the conditions themselves—and thus can be achieved by a nutrition-sensitive UCT as well. This transfer would include the labeling achieved via social mobilization and by addressing more entrenched norms and values, as part of behavioral change communication (BCC). Although participation in communication events is occasionally a condition for eligibility, as it is in Oportunidades, BCC can be linked to other transfers as well. For example, the public works program in Djibouti, which prioritizes women, also includes regular BCC sessions on nutrition. The potential for linking BCC and transfers was shown in a trial that com- pared cash and in-kind transfers as well as each transfer modality combined Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 27 with BCC.21 The BCC covered: (1) overall impor- tance of nutrition and diet diversity for health; (2) While cash alone did not handwashing/hygiene for improving nutrition and lead to improvements health; (3) micronutrients: diversifying diets, vita- in anthropometry, the min A; (4) micronutrients: diversifying diets, iron, iodine, and zinc; (5) feeding young children: breast- combination of cash and BCC feeding (6) feeding young children: complementary had a significant impact on feeding; and (7) maternal nutrition. Cash alone did height for age as well as not lead to improvements in anthropometry, but the on nutritional knowledge combination of cash and BCC had a significant impact on height for age as well as on nutritional and behaviors. knowledge and behaviors. 22 In a very different context, Ruel (2001) maintains that increases in the  availability of nutritious foods—including through increased home p ­ roduction—has limited impact on nutrition without con- current nutritional messaging. This was shown in one of the earliest ran- domized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the joint impact of food pricing and BCC on ­ nutrition (Garcia and Pinstrup-Andersen 1987). The trial found that the positive and significant impact of a subsidy on rice and cook- ing oil on household food expenditures and preschool weight gain in the Philippines was enhanced when nutrition education was also included. The role of behavior change may also be illustrated by yet another form of transfers linked to an underlying risk factor of malnutrition: open defecation (Spears 2013). A study of supply vouchers plus behavioral change communi- cation also in Bangladesh found this approach had a greater impact on latrine  ownership or utilization than either motivation campaign alone or a  supply-side intervention at the market level (Guiteras, Levinsohn, and Mobarak 2015). In addition, there was a spillover effect; nonsubsided house- holds also responded to the decisions of their neighbors.23 The study, how- ever, did not explore subsidies alone as previous research indicated that this was not a valid strategy. While arguably demand-side interventions to encourage utilization of health service (as in fee waivers and price supports) are not strictly social protection activities, one conclusion of the Spears study is pertinent to a broader social protection portfolio. The researcher concluded that due to the spillover effects, smaller subsidies targeted to multiple households in a net- work can generate more investment than large subsidies deployed to a few in an uncoordinated manner. An emerging field of study examines the efficiency at which households use information to combine inputs for health production as well as other deci- sions. This field of behavioral economics looks at how stress affects decision making, and it has accumulated a body of evidence on the barrier that stress places on economic choices (World Bank 2015b). There is less evidence on the degree to which safety nets can alleviate this form of a poverty trap and foster more practical decisions by reducing stress. A few studies, however, offer insights on the interaction of social assistance and stress. For example, women receiving transfers in Mexico were found to 28 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary have lower cortisol (Fernald and Gunnar 2009), and cash transfers in Malawi and Kenya were found to reduce psychological stress (Baird, de Hoop, and Özler 2013; Haushofer and Shapiro 2013). The long-term impact of this con- ceivable pathway is yet to be traced. While still in the realm of a hypothesis, it is plausible that reducing stress can improve nutrition. For example, maternal depression is associated with malnutrition (Patel et al. 2004); it is also considered a factor in child cognitive and socioemotional development (Wachs, Black, and Engle 2009; Walker et al. 2011). The association is as strong in high-income countries as it is in low-income Asia, likely reflecting reduced maternal sensitivity to her child’s needs, an issue more about care than food access. Although there are few interventions that focus on reversing the pernicious effect of this risk on child growth per se, a few trials show that there are effective means to improve birth outcomes through community mobilization (Tripathy et al. 2010). The main outcome tracked in this particular study was neonatal mortality, but depres- sion was also significantly reduced. Prost et al. (2013) indicate that this approach, using women’s groups to improve maternal and child health has been effective in a range of settings. Whether similar results can be achieved at scale and within the context of social protection assistance and behavioral change is an area worth inquiry. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 29 Conclusions Given the scale and coverage of safety nets in many countries with a high burden of malnutrition, there is a vast potential for such programs to contribute to improvements in health and development, a potential that is ­ not yet fully realized. To reach this potential, social protection programs need to: ➤➤ Target activities to the most nutritionally vulnerable populations. ➤➤ Include educational activities within social protection interventions to increase household awareness of health and nutrition caregiving and health-seeking behaviors. ➤➤ Enhance the quality of nutrition services (e.g., growth promotion and  interventions for improved diet quality) into social protection interventions—particularly transfer programs. ­ ➤➤ Use school feeding programs as vehicles for micronutrient supplementa- tion and deworming, including links with nutrition education. ➤➤ Scale up in times of crisis to reduce the long-term negative impacts of external financial, price, and weather shocks. The ability of a household to purchase or grow adequate nutritious food on a regular basis is at the heart of food security. Increased coverage of low-income families in social protection programs addresses this underly- ing determinant of nutrition. Although beneficiaries of safety nets regularly allocate a substantial share of the funds they receive to food—often at higher rates than they do from other income sources—the impact of safety nets on undernutrition is often less than desired. In part, this result shows that food security is only one determinant of good nutrition. Moreover, the poverty alleviation goals of many programs are broader than nutrition objectives; families with children in the most vulnerable ages are only one target popu- lation among many. Many countries choose to spread safety nets widely; budget limitations then imply that these nets are also shallow. As shown by many studies of early child development, the returns on human capital investments are greatest among youngest children, consistent with the 1,000-day focus in nutrition (Alderman, Behrman and Glewwe 2015). This evidence could assist in the policy choice of how much of the national social protection budget to allocate for different age categories. Prioritization of beneficiaries in accord with nutritional needs is one ­feature of a nutrition-sensitive social protection program, and another is rec- ognition that increased food purchases address only part of the set of con- straints to good nutrition. A family can purchase food if they have funds, but they cannot as readily purchase proper sanitation; nor do the funds received from a transfer program guarantee easy access to quality health care. The most effective transfer programs, then, are those that address both the demand for public health services as well invest in the supply and quality of such services. 30 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Similarly, programs can recognize that demand for The most effective transfer health services in addition to nutritious food is influ- programs, then, are those that enced by preferences as well as by disposable income. address both the demand for Knowledge of proper hygiene and of appropriate feeding practices contribute to good nutrition yet do public health services as well not automatically improve with increased purchas- invest in the supply and quality ing power. Accompanying transfer programs with of such services. community-based behavioral change and social marketing can enhance the impact of transfers. ­ Indeed, one indication of the quality of health ser- vices is their ability to counsel households that are at risk of under—or over— nutrition or both. There are encouraging examples of social protection programs that have begun with strong emphasis on service quality and BCC—or added these benefits during scale up. For example, Peru reformed its Juntos CCT program to stress training and service provision, particularly for children less than 36 months. Recent results from that program point to a significant improve- ment in the height of boys enrolled in the program (Andersen et al. 2015).24 CCTs and UCTs are not the only safety net programs that can be designed to be nutrition-sensitive. Public works, for example, are an important compo- nent of many social protection strategies because they can create community assets such as roads and improved watersheds while addressing chronic—and occasionally acute—poverty. They are often neutral in regard to consider- ations of nutrition, but this need not always be the case. For example, Djibouti has scaled up a nutrition-sensitive public works program in which participa- tion of women in community BCC is a prerequisite for a household member to be eligible for participation in public works. Moreover, these activities are designed to be light so that pregnant and lactating women can take up the opportunity for employment. Similarly, Ethiopia has added an explicit nutrition objective to its mature productive safety nets program. The public works program now promotes soft conditionalities that include utilization of community-based nutrition and BCC for improved infant and young child feeding practices as well as antenatal care (ANC) services, primarily targeted to children under two years and pregnant women. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 31 Notes   1. Interventions or programs that address the immediate determinants of fetal and child nutrition and development—adequate food and nutrient intake, feeding, caregiving, and parenting practices, and low burden of infectious diseases. (Ruel and Alderman 2013).   2. This estimate, from Fiszbein, Kanbur, and Yemtsov (2014), includes social insur- ance as well as noncontributory transfers. Some of the data employed in this study differ—and are generally more sanguine—than that in World Bank (n.d.).   3. Calculated from World Bank (n.d.). The set of countries with a rural-urban break- down differ slightly from the full set, so averages are not strictly comparable.   4. Fiszbein, Kanbur, and Yemtsov (2014) however, refers to this finding in terms of cost-benefit ratios. This is a misleading choice of terminology as it differs from the concept that is conventionally implied by benefit-cost ratios.   5. In some contexts transfers may actually increase labor supply. Several studies from South Africa find that workers in households receiving social grants look for work more intensely and find employment more successfully than do work- ers in comparably poor households that do not receive the grants (Samson and Williams 2007; Ardington, Case, and Hosegood 2009). The grants appear to help finance the migration and job search of family members who then provide remittances.   6. For a review of the impact of transfers on income generation and investment, see Alderman and Yemtsov (2014).   7. Similarly, it is not an open policy question as to the tendency of households to use a portion of their increased income on alcohol or tobacco; there is no convincing evidence that transfer income influences the propensity to spend on such pur- chases, the occasional anecdote notwithstanding (Evans and Popova 2014).   8. An additional reason for not relying solely on income growth as the main pillar of a national nutrition strategy is that obesity rates increase at 7 percent for every 10 percent increase in national income.   9. Moreover, a recent study finds that increases in household wealth accounts for only a quarter of the improvement in this period (Headey et al. 2015). 10. King and Behrman (2009) also point out that because nutritional status is cumu- lative, short-term impact measurement may underestimate impacts. For exam- ple Fernald, Gertler and Neufeld (2009) found larger impacts of PROGRESA on children who participated in the program for 18 additional months compared to a control group. 11. Additionally, governments often did not trust markets, claiming hoarding as a con- tribution to price increases. This view—along with a view that one-­ dimensional equity in food access trumped overall equity in resources—contributed to war- time rationing, which can be viewed as an ancestor to some food distribution systems that still prevail. 12. The converse is also the case: a price increase of an inelastic commodity would not lead to a large change in the amount purchased, but would lead to a reduc- tion in real income, which is one reason why governments often seek to stabilize commodity price movements. ­ 13. Whether a subsidy is regressive or proportionally larger as a share of expen- ditures for low-income consumers is a function of the income elasticity and is relatively easy to determine in a household survey. ­ 14. Aker (2014) compares cash and vouchers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also finds cash less costly to implement than vouchers. In addi- tion, vouchers imposed costs on the consumers in terms of the inflexibility for redemption. 32 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 15. Moreover, the value (in local terms) and the frequency of delivery differed between the two program modes. 16. This result has a bearing on the design of local sourcing as discussed in the con- text of homegrown school feeding. 17. Fenn et al. (2015) also present evidence on the use of cash in emergencies. However, the emergency addressed is a predictable seasonal food shortage. Although there is an obvious need for programs designed to address such peri- odic food security issues, the role of social protection in these circumstances is likely very different than in sudden onset disasters. 18. These products have ample shelf life and can be specially formulated for nutri- tionally at-risk children (Chaparro and Dewey 2010). 19. Additionally, governments may find greater political support when conditions are a design feature. Moreover, some beneficiaries may prefer conditions either because coresponsibilities are a matter of perceived dignity or because the con- ditions provide parents an element of monitoring of their children’s behavior (Bursztyn and Coffman 2012). 20. This was tentatively attributed to underreporting, although plausibly it could reflect that CCTs have a smaller effect on behaviors that influence neonatal mortality than on those associated with subsequent health risks. ­ 21. Preliminary results from an on-going trial undertaken by Akhtar Ahmad, John Hoddinott, Wahid Quabili, Shalini Roy, and Esha Sraboni. Personal com- munication cited with permission of the research team. 22. The improvement in the in-kind plus BCC arm was not significantly different from zero. A side result of this study was that each arm expressed a preference for the modality of transfer that they were receiving. 23. This would be in addition to the positive externalities that comes for a cleaner environment as latrine use increases. 24. This study has not yet been included in the various meta-analyses of CCTs. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 33 References Adelman, Sarah, Harold Alderman, Daniel O. Gilligan, and Joseph Konde-Lule. 2015. “Addressing Anemia through School Feeding Programs: Experimental Evidence from Northern Uganda.” Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Processed. Adelman, Sarah, Daniel O. Gilligan, and Kim Lehrer. 2008. “How Effective Are Food for Education Programs? A Critical Assessment of the Evidence from Developing Countries. Forthcoming. IFPRI Food Policy Review 9, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Afridi, Farzana. 2010. “Child Welfare Programs and Child Nutrition: Evidence from a Mandated School Meal Program in India.” Journal of Development Economics. 92:152–165. Aker, Jenny. 2014. “Comparing Cash and Voucher Transfers in a Humanitarian Context: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo.” Tufts University. Processed. Aker, Jenny, Rachid Boumnijel, Amanda McClelland, and Niall Tierney. 2011. “Zap  It  to Me: The Short-Term Impacts of a Mobile Cash Transfer Program.” Working Paper 268, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC. Akresh, Richard, Damien de Walque, and Harounan Kazianga. 2012. Alternative Cash Transfer Delivery Mechanisms: Impacts on Routine Preventive Health Clinic Visits in Burkina Faso. Working Paper 17785. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Alderman, Harold. 1988. “The Twilight of the Flour Ration in Pakistan.” Food Policy 13 (August): 245–56. ———. 2010. “The Economic Cost of a Poor Start to Life.” Journal of Development Origins of Health and Disease 1 (1): 19–25. Alderman, Harold, Jere R Behrman, and Paul Glewwe. 2015. “A Framework for Physical Growth and Child Development.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01435, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Alderman, Harold, and Donald Bundy. 2012. “School Feeding Programs and Development: Are We Framing the Question Correctly? World Bank Research Observer 27 (2): 204–21. Alderman, Harold, and Carlo del Ninno. 1999. “Poverty Issues for Zero Rating VAT in South Africa.” Journal of African Economies 8 (2): 182–208. Alderman, Harold, John Hoddinott, and William Kinsey. 2006. “Long Term Consequences of Early Childhood Malnutrition.” Oxford Economic Papers. 58 (3): 450–74. Alderman, Harold, and Kathy Lindert. 1998. “The Potential and Limitations of Self-Targeted Food Subsidies.” World Bank Research Observer 13 (2): 213–30. ­ Alderman, Harold, and Ruslan Yemtsov. 2014. “How Can Safety Nets Contribute to Economic Growth?” World Bank Economic Review 28 (1): 1–20. 34 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Alderman, Harold, and Sebastian Linnemayr. 2009. “Anemia in Low Income Countries is Unlikely to be Addressed by Economic Development Without Additional Programs.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 30 (3): 265–270. Amarante, Verónica, Marco Manacorda, Edward Miguel, and Andrea Vigorito. 2012. Do Cash Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes? Evidence from Matched Vital  Statistics, Program and Social Security Data. CEGA Working Paper WPS-004. Center for Effective Global Action, University of California, Berkeley. Andersen, Christopher, Sarah A. Reynolds, Jere R. Behrman, Benjamin T. Crookston, Kirk A. Dearden, Javier Escobal, Subha Mani, Alan Sánchez, Aryeh D. Stein, and Lia C. H. Fernald. 2015. “Participation in the Juntos Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Peru Is Associated with Changes in Child Anthropometric Status but Not Language Development or School Achievement.” Journal of Nutrition 145 (10): 2396–2405. Angelucci, Manuela, and Orazio Attanasio. 2013. “The Demand for Food of Poor Urban Mexican Households: Understanding Policy Impacts Using Structural Models.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (1): 146–205. Ardington, Cally, Anne Case, and Victoria Hosegood. 2009. “Labor Supply Responses to Large Social Transfers: Longitudinal Evidence from South Africa.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (1): 22–48. Ashworth, Ann, Roger Shrimpton, and Kazi Jamil. 2008. “Growth Monitoring and Promotion: Review of Evidence of Impact.” Maternal and Child Nutrition 4 (S1): 86–117. Attanasio, Orazio, Erich Battistin, and Alice Mesnard. 2012. “Food and Cash Transfers: Evidence from Colombia.” Economic Journal 122 (559): 92–124. Attanasio, Orazio P., Veruska Oppedisano, and Marcos Vera-Hernández. 2015.  “Should Cash Transfers Be Conditional? Conditionality, Preventive Care, and Health Outcomes.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 7 (2): 35–52. Baird, Sarah, Jacobus de Hoop, and Berk Özler. 2013. “Income Shocks and Adolescent Mental Health.” Journal of Human Resources 48 (2): 370–403. Baird, Sarah, Francisco Ferreira, Berk Özler, and Michael Woolcock. 2014. Conditional, Unconditional and Everything in Between: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes on Schooling Outcomes. Journal of Development Effectiveness 6 (1): 1–43. Barber, Sarah L., and Paul J. Gertler. 2010. “Empowering Women: How Mexico’s Conditional Cash Transfer Programme Raised Prenatal Care Quality and Birth Weight.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 2 (1): 51–73. Barham, Tania. 2011. “A Healthier Start: The Effect of Conditional Cash Transfers on Neonatal and Infant Mortality in Rural Mexico.” Journal of Development Economics 94: 74–85. Behrman, Jere R., and Anil B. Deolalikar. 1987. “Will Developing Country Nutrition Improve with Income? A Case Study for Rural South India.” Journal of Political Economy 95: 3(June): 108–38. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 35 Behrman, Jere R., and John Hoddinott. 2005. “Programme Evaluation with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Selective Implementation: The Mexican PROGRESA Impact on Child Nutrition.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 67 (4): 547–69. Benhassine, Najy, Florencia Devoto, Esther Duflo, Pascaline Dupas, and Victor Pouliquen. 2013. “Turning a Shove into a Nudge? A ‘Labeled Cash Transfer’ for Education.” Working Paper w19227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Best, Cora, Nicole Neufingerl, Joy Miller Del Rosso, Catherine Transler, Tina van den Briel, and Saskia Osendarp. 2011. “Can Multi-Micronutrient Food Fortification Improve the Micronutrient Status, Growth, Health, and Cognition of Schoolchildren? A Systematic Review.” Nutrition Reviews 69 (4): 186–204. Bhutta, Zulfiqar A., Jai K. Das, Rajiv Bahl, Joy E. Lawn, Rehana A. Salam, Vinod K. Paul, M. Jeeva Sankar, and others. 2014. “Can Available Interventions End Preventable Deaths in Mothers, Newborn Babies, and Stillbirths, and at What Cost?” The Lancet 384 (9940): 347–70. Bhutta, Zulfiqar A., Jai K. Das, Arjumand Rizvi, Michelle F. Gaffey, Neff Walker, Susan Horton, Patrick Webb, Anna Lartey, Robert E. Black. 2013. “Evidence-Based Interventions for Improvement of Maternal and Child Nutrition: What Can Be Done and at What Cost?” The Lancet 382 (9890): 452–77. Bóo, Florencia López, and Maria Eugenia Canon. 2013. “Cognitive Skills Gaps in India: Can (Late) Nutrition Ameliorate Them?” PDF. de Brauw, Alan, Daniel O. Gilligan, John Hoddinott, and Shalini Roy. 2015. “Bolsa Família and Household Labor Supply.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 63 (3): 423–57. Breunig, Robert, and Indraneel Dasgupta. 2005. “Do Intra-Household Effects Generate the Food Stamp Cash-Out Puzzle?” American Journal of Agricultural Economic. 87 (3): 552–68. Bursztyn, Leonardo, and Lucas Coffman. 2012. “The Schooling Decision: Family Preferences, Intergenrational Conflict, and Moral Hazard in the Brazilian Favelas.” Journal of Political Economy 120 (3): 359–97. Chaparro, Camilla M., and Kathryn G. Dewey. 2010. “Use of Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplements (LNS) to Improve the Nutrient Adequacy of General Food Distribution Rations for Vulnerable Sub-Groups in Emergency Settings.” Maternal and Child Nutrition 6: 1–69. Cox, Donald, Bruce E. Hansen, and Emmanuel Jimenez. 2004. “How Responsive Are Private Transfers to Income? Evidence from a Laissez-Faire Economy.” Journal of Public Economics 88 (9): 2193–219. Cunha, Jesse. 2014. “Testing Paternalism: Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6 (2): 195–230. Cunha, Jesse M., Giacomo De Giorgi, and Seema Jayachandran. 2011. “The Price Effects of Cash versus In-Kind Transfers.” NBER Working Paper 17456, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Das, Jishnu, Quy-Toan Do, and Berk Özler. 2005. “Reassessing Conditional Cash Transfer Programs.” World Bank Research Observer 20 (1): 57–80. 36 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary de Groot, Richard, Sudhanshu Handa, Tia Palermo, Amber Peterman, and Luigi Peter Ragno. 2015. “Cash Transfers and Child Nutrition: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” New York: UNICEF. DFID (UK Department for International Development). 2011. DFID Cash Transfers Evidence Paper. London: Policy Division, DFID. Duflo, Ester. 2003. “Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intra-household Allocation in South Africa.” World Bank Economic Review 17 (1): 1–25. Evans, David, and Anna Popova. 2014. “Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods. A Review of Global Evidence.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6886, World Bank, Washington, DC. Fenn, Bridget, Garba Noura, Victoria Sibson, Carmel Dolan, and Jeremy Shoham. 2015. “The Role of Unconditional Cash Transfers during a Nutritional Emergency in Maradi Region, Niger: A Pre–Post Intervention Observational Study.” Public Health Nutrition 18.02: 343–51. Fernald, Lia, and Megan Gunnar. 2009. “Poverty-Alleviation Program Participation and Salivary Cortisol in Very Low-Income Children.” Social Science and Medicine 68 (12): 2180–89. Fernald, Lia, Paul Gertler, and Lynnette Neufeld. 2009. “10-Year Effect of Oportunidades, Mexico’s Conditional Cash Transfer Programme, on Child Growth, Cognition, Language, and Behaviour: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study. The Lancet. 374 (9706): 1997–2005. Fiedler, John L., Sunil Babu, Marc-Francois Smitz, Keith Lividini, and Odilia Bermudez. 2012. “Indian Social Safety Net Programs as Platforms for Introducing Wheat Flour Fortification: A Case Study Of Gujarat, India.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 33 (1): 11–30. Fiszbein, Ariel, Ravi Kanbur, and Ruslan Yemtsov. 2014. “Social Protection and Poverty Reduction: Global Patterns and Some Targets.” World Development 61: 167–77. Fiszbein, Ariel, and Norbert Schady. 2009. “Conditional Cash Transfers for Attacking Present and Future Poverty.” World Bank Policy Research Report, World Bank, Washington, DC. Forde, Ian, Tarani Chandola, Sandra Garcia, Michael Marmot, and Orazio Attanasio. 2012. “The Impact of Cash Transfers to Poor Women in Colombia on BMI and Obesity: Prospective Cohort Study. International Journal of Obesity 36 (9): 1209–14. Gaarder, Marie M., Amanda Glassman, Jessica E. Todd. 2010. “Conditional Cash Transfers and Health: Unpacking the Causal Chain.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 2: 6–50. Garcia, Marito, and Per Pinstrup-Andersen. 1987. “The Pilot Food Price Subsidy Scheme in the Philippines: Its Impact on Income, Food Consumption and Nutritional Status.” IFPRI Research Report 61, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 37 Gelli, Aulo, and Roshan Daryanani. 2013. “Are School Feeding Programs in Low- Income Settings Sustainable? Insights on the Costs of School Feeding Compared with Investments in Primary Education.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 34 (3): 310–17. Gentilini, Ugo. 2016. “The Revival of the ‘Cash Versus Food’ Debate: New Evidence for an Old Quandary?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7584, World Bank, Washington, DC. Giles, John, and Elan Satriawan. 2015. “Protecting Child Nutritional Status in the Aftermath of a Financial Crisis: Evidence from Indonesia.” Journal of Development Economics 114: 97–106. Grantham-McGregor, Sally M., Susan M. Chang, and Susan P. Walker. 1998. “Evaluation of School Feeding Programs: Some Jamaican Examples. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 67 (4): 785S–89S. Grellety, Emmanuel, Susan Shepherd, Thomas Roederer, Mahamane L. Manzo, Stéphane. Doyon, Eric-Alain Ategbo, and Rebecca Grais. 2012. “Effect of Mass Supplementation with Ready-to-Use Supplementary Food during an Anticipated Nutritional Emergency.” PLOS ONE 7: e44549. Grosh, Margaret, Carlo Del Ninno, Emil Tesliuc, and Azedine Ouerghi. 2008. For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. Guiteras, Raymond, James Levinsohn, and Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak. 2015. “Encouraging Sanitation Investment in the Developing World: A Cluster- Randomized Trial.” Science 348 (6237): 903–06. Haddad, Lawrence, Harold Alderman, Simon Appleton, Lina Song, and Yisehac Yohannes. 2003. “Reducing Child Malnutrition: How Far Does Income Growth Take Us?” World Bank Economic Review 17 (1): 107–31. Haddad, Lawrence, John Hoddinott, and Harold Alderman, eds. 1997. Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Methods, Models, and Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harvey, Paul. 2007. Cash-Based Responses in Emergencies. Humanitarian Policy Group Report 24. London: Overseas Development Institute. Haushofer, Johannes, and Jeremy Shapiro. 2013. “Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer Program in Kenya.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Processed. Headey, Derek, John Hoddinott, Disha Ali, Roman Tesfaye, and Mekdim Dereje. 2015. “The Other Asian Enigma: Explaining the Rapid Reduction of Undernutrition in Bangladesh.” World Development 66: 749–61. Hidrobo, Melissa, John Hoddinott, Amber Peterman, Amy Margolies, and Vanessa Moreira. 2014. “Cash, Food, or Vouchers? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Northern Ecuador.” Journal of Development Economics 107: 144–56. Hoddinott, John, Jere R. Behrman, John A. Maluccio, Paul Melgar, Agnes R. Quisumbing, Manuel Ramirez-Zea, Aryeh D. Stein, Kathryn M. Yount, and Reynaldo Martorell. 2013. “Adult Consequences of Growth Failure in Early Childhood.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 98 (5): 1170–78. 38 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Hoddinott, John, Guush Berhane, Daniel Gilligan, Neha Kumar, and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse. 2012. “The Impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme and Related Transfers on Agricultural Productivity.” Journal of African Economies 21 (5): 761–86. Hoddinott, John, Susanna Sandström, and Joanna Upton. 2014. The Impact of Cash and Food Transfers: Evidence from a Randomized Intervention in Niger. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01341. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Huybregts, Lieven, Freddy Houngbé, Cécile Salpéteur, Rebecca Brown, Dominique Roberfroid, Myriam Ait-Aissa, and Patrick Kolsteren. 2012. “The Effect of Adding Ready-To-Use Supplementary Food to a General Food Distribution on Child Nutritional Status and Morbidity: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.” PLOS Medicine 9 (9): e1001313. IFPRI. 2014. Statistics of Public Expenditure for Economic Development (SPEED). IFPRI, Washington DC. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/statistics-public​ -expenditures-economic-development-speed. Jensen, Robert T. 2004. “Do Private Transfers ‘Displace’ the Benefits of Public Transfers? Evidence from South Africa.” Journal of Public Economics 88 (1): 89–112. Jensen, Robert T., and Nolan H. Miller. 2011. “Do Consumer Price Subsidies Really Improve Nutrition?” Review of Economics and Statistics 93(4): 1205–23. Kaushal, Neeraj, and Felix M. Muchomba. 2015. “How Consumer Price Subsidies Affect Nutrition.” World Development 74: 25–42. Kazianga, Harounan, Damien de Walque, and Harold Alderman. 2014. “School Feeding Programs, Intrahousehold Allocation and the Nutrition of Siblings: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Rural Burkina Faso.” Journal of Development Economics 106: 15–34. King, Elizabeth, and Jere Behrman. 2009. “Timing and Duration of Exposure in Evaluations of Social Programs.” World Bank Research Observer 24 (1): 55–82. Kooreman, Peter. 2000. “The Labeling Effect of a Child Benefit System.” American Economic Review 90 (3): 571–83. Kristjansson, Betsy, Vivian Robinson, Mark Petticrew, and others. 2007. “School Feeding for Improving the Physical and Psychosocial Health of Disadvantaged Elementary School Children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 1 Art CD004676 www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004676.html. Lagarde, Mylene, Andy Haines, and Natasha Palmer. 2007. “Conditional Cash Transfers for Improving Uptake of Health Interventions in Low- and Middle- Income Countries: A Systematic Review.” Journal of American Medical Association 298: 1900–10. Leroy, Jef, Paola Gadsden, Teresa De Cossío, and Paul Gertler. 2013. “Cash and In-Kind Transfers Lead to Excess Weight Gain in a Population of Women with a High Prevalence of Overweight in Rural Mexico.” Journal of Nutrition 143 (3): 378–83. Leroy, Jef, Marie Ruel, and Ellen Verhofstadt. 2009. “The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes on Child Nutrition: A Review of Evidence Using a Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 39 Programme Theory Framework.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 1 (2): 103–29. Lim, Stephen, Lalit Dandona, Joseph A. Hoisington, Spencer L. James, Margaret C. Hogan, and Emmanuela Gakidou. 2010. “India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana, a Conditional Cash Transfer Programme to Increase Births in Health Facilities: An Impact Evaluation.” The Lancet 375 (9730): 2009–23. Linnemayr, Sebastian, and Harold Alderman. 2011. “Almost Random: Evaluating a Large-Scale Randomized Nutrition Program in the Presence of Crossover.” Journal of Development Economics 96: 106–14. Lobstein, Tim, Rachel Jackson-Leach, Marjory L. Moodie, Kevin D. Hall, Steven L. Gortmaker, Boyd A. Swinburn, W. Philip T. James, Youfa Wang, and Klim McPherson. 2015. “Child and Adolescent Obesity: Part of a Bigger Picture.” The Lancet 385 (9986): 2510–20. Luo, Renfu, Yaojiang Shi, Linxiu Zhang, Chengfang Liu, Scott Rozelle, Brian Sharbono, Ai Yue, Qiran Zhao, and Reynaldo Martorell. 2012. “Nutrition and Educational Performance in Rural China’s Elementary Schools: Results of a Randomized Control Trial in Shaanxi Province.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 60 (4): 735–72. Manley, James, Seth Gitter, and Vanya Slavchevska. 2013. “How Effective are Cash Transfers at Improving Nutritional Status?” World Development 48: 133–55. Margolies, Amy, and John Hoddinott. 2015. “Costing Alternative Transfer Modalities.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 7 (1): 1–16. Mehta, Aashish, and Shikha Jha. 2014. “Pilferage from Opaque Food Subsidy Programs: Theory and Evidence.” Food Policy 45: 69–79. Meller, Marian, and Stephan Litschig. 2014. “Saving Lives: Evidence from a Conditional Food Supplementation Program.” Journal of Human Resources 49 (4): 1014–52. Moretti, Diego, Michael B. Zimmermann, Sumithra Muthayya, Prashanth Thankachan, Tung-Ching Lee, Anura V. Kurpad, and Richard F. Hurrell. 2006. “Extruded Rice Fortified with Micronized Ground Ferric Pyrophosphate Reduces Iron Deficiency in Indian Schoolchildren: A Double Blind Randomized Control Trial.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 84: 822–29. Neumann, Charlotte G., Nimrod O. Bwibo, Suzanne P. Murphy, Marian Sigman, Shannon Whaley, Lindsay H. Allen, Donald Guthrie, Robert E. Weiss, and Montague W. Demment. 2003. “Animal Source Foods Improve Dietary Quality, Micronutrient Status, Growth, and Cognitive Function in Kenyan School Children: Background, Study Design and Baseline Findings. Journal of Nutrition 133, 3941S–49S. Patel, Vikram, Atif Rahman, K. S. Jacob, and Marcus Hughes. 2004. “Effect of Maternal Mental Health on Infant Growth in Low Income Countries: New Evidence from South Asia.” British Medical Journal 328 (7443): 820–23. Pelham, Larissa, Edward Clay, and Tim Braunholz. 2011. Natural Disasters: What Is the Role for Social Safety Nets? Social Protection Discussion Paper 1102, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 40 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, ed. 1988. Consumer-Oriented Food Subsidies: Costs, Benefits, and Policy Options for Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pitt, Mark. 1983. “Food Preferences and Nutrition in Rural Bangladesh.” Review of Economics and Statistics 65: 105–14. Prost, Audrey, Tim Colbourn, Nadine Seward, Kishwar Azad, and others. 2013. “Women’s Groups Practising Participatory Learning and Action to Improve Maternal and Newborn Health in Low-Resource Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” The Lancet 381.9879: 1736–46. Ramírez-Silva, Ivonne, Juan Rivera, Jef Leroy, and Lynette Neufeld. 2013. “The Oportunidades Program’s Fortified Food Supplement, but Not Improvements in the Home Diet, Increased the Intake of Key Micronutrients in Rural Mexican Children Aged 12–59 Months. Journal of Nutrition 143 (5): 656–63. Randive, Bharat, Vishal Diwan, and Ayesha De Costa. 2013. “India’s Conditional Cash Transfer Programme (the JSY) to Promote Institutional Birth: Is There an Association between Institutional Birth Proportion and Maternal Mortality.” PLOS ONE 8 (6): e67452. Ranganathan, Meghna, and Mylene Lagarde. 2012. “Promoting Healthy Behaviours and Improving Health Outcomes in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Review of the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes.” Preventive Medicine 55: S95–S105. Rasella, Davide, Rosana Aquino, Carlos A. T. Santos, Rômulo Paes-Sousa, and Mauricio L. Barreto. 2013. “Effect of a Conditional Cash Transfer Programme on Childhood Mortality: A Nationwide Analysis of Brazilian Municipalities.” The Lancet 382 (9886): 57–64. Robertson, Laura, Phyllis Mushati, Jeffrey W. Eaton, Lovemore Dumba, and ­ others. 2013. “Effects of Unconditional and Conditional Cash Transfers on Child Health and Development in Zimbabwe: A Cluster-Randomised Trial.” The Lancet 381.9874: 1283–92. Ruel, Marie. 2001. “Can Food-Based Strategies Help Reduce Vitamin A and Iron Deficiencies? A Review of Recent Evidence.” Food Policy Review 5. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Ruel, Marie, and Harold Alderman. 2013. “Nutrition-Sensitive Interventions and Programs: How Can They Help Accelerate Progress in Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition?” The Lancet 382 (9891): 536–51. Sabates-Wheeler, Rachel, and Stephen Devereux. 2010. “Cash Transfers and High  Food Prices: Explaining Outcomes in Ethiopia’s Safety Net Programme.” Food Policy 25 (3): 274–85. Sachdev, H. P. S., Tarun Gera, and Penelope Nestel. 2005. “Effect of Iron Supplementation on Mental and Motor Development in Children: Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.” Public Health Nutrition 8 (2): 117–32. Sadoulet, Elisabeth, Alain de Janvry, and Benjamin Davis. 2001. “Cash Transfer Programs with Income Multipliers: PROCAMPO in Mexico.” World Development 29 (6): 1043–56. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 41 Samson, Michael, and M. Williams. 2007. “A Review of Employment, Growth and Development Impacts of South Africa’s Social Transfers,” EPRI Working Paper 41. Cape Town. Sánchez-Páramo, Carolina. 2002. “Unemployment, Skills, and Incentives: An Overview of the Safety Net System in the Slovak Republic.” Policy Research Working Paper Series 2753, World Bank, Washington, DC. Sen, Amartya. 1981. “Ingredients of Famine Analysis: Availability and Entitlements.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 96 (3): 433–64. Singh, Abhijeet, Albert Park, and Stephan Dercon. 2014. “School Meals as a Safety Net: An Evaluation of the Midday Meal Scheme in India.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 62 (2): 275–306. Smith, Lisa, and Lawrence Haddad. 2015. “Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era.” World Development 68: 180–204. Spears, Dean. 2013. “How Much International Variation in Child Height Can  Sanitation Explain?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6351, World Bank, Washington, DC. Subramanian, Shankar, and Angus Deaton. 1996. “The Demand for Food and Calories.” Journal of Political Economy. 104 (1): 133–62. Sumarto, Sudarno, Asep Suryahadi, and Lant Pritchett. 2003. “Safety Nets or Safety Ropes? Dynamic Benefit Incidence of Two Crisis Programs in Indonesia.” World Development 31 (7): 1257–77. Sumberg, James, and Rachel Sabates-Wheeler. 2011. “Linking Agricultural Development to School Feeding in Sub-Saharan Africa: Theoretical Perspectives.” ­ Food Policy 36 (3): 341–349. Tripathy, Prasanta, Nirmala Nair, Sarah Barnett, Rajendra Mahapatra, Josephine Borghi, Shibanand Rath, Suchitra Rath, Rajkumar Gope, Dipnath Mahto, Rajesh Sinha, Rashmi Lakshminarayana, Vikram Patel, Christina Pagel, Audrey Prost, and Anthony Costello. 2010. “Effect of a Participatory Intervention with Women’s Groups on Birth Outcomes and Maternal Depression in Jharkhand and Orissa, India: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 375 (9721): 1182–92. UNICEF. 1990. Strategy for Improved Nutrition of Children and Women in Developing Countries. Policy Review Paper E/ICEF/1990/1.6. UNICEF, New York, NY. van Ours, Jan C., and Milan Vodopivec. 2006. “Duration of Unemployment Benefits and Quality of Post-Unemployment Jobs: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Policy Research Working Paper Series 4031, World Bank, Washington, DC. van Stuijvenberg, M. Elizabeth, Jane D. Kvalsvig, Mieke Faber, Marita Kruger, Diane G. Kenoyer, and A. J. Spinnler Benaké. 1999. “Effect of Iron-, Iodine-, and β-Carotene-Fortified Biscuits on the Micronutrient Status of Primary School Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69: 497–503. Verstraeten, Roosmarijn, Dominique Roberfroid, Carl Lachat, Jef L. Leroy, Michelle Holdsworth, Lea Maes, and Patrick W. Kolsteren. 2012. “Effectiveness of 42 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Preventive School-Based Obesity Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 92 (2): 415–38. Wachs, Theodore, Maureen Black, and Patrice Engle. 2009. “Maternal Depression: A  Global Threat to Children’s Health, Development, and Behavior and to Human Rights. Child Development Perspectives 3 (1): 51–59. Walker, Susan P., Theodore D. Wachs, Sally Grantham-McGregor, Maureen Black, Charles Nelson, Sandra Huffman, Helen Baker-Henningham, Susan Chang, Jena Hamadani, Betsy Lozoff, Julie Meeks Gardner, Christine Powell, Atif Rahman, and Linda Richter. 2011. “Inequality in Early Childhood: Risk and Protective Factors for Early Child Development. The Lancet 378 (9799): 1325–38. Webb, Patrick, Erin Boyd, Saskia de Pee, Lindsey Lenters, Martin Bloem, and Werner Schultink. 2014. “Nutrition in Emergencies: Do We Know What Works?” Food Policy 49: 33–40. World Bank. 2015a. State of Social Safety Nets 2015. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2015b. World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (n.d.). World Bank Atlas of Social Protection. http://datatopics.worldbank​ .org/aspire/. Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary 43 Appendix Figure A.1  UNICEF Framework for Malnutrition Malnutrition and death Inadequate Disease dietary intake Insufficient health Inadequate Inadequate services and care for mothers access to food unhealthy and children environment Inadequate education Formal and nonformal institutions Political and ideological superstructure Economic structure Potential resources Source: UNICEF. 1990. Strategy for Improved Nutrition of Children and Women in Developing Countries. Policy Review Paper E/ICEF/1990/1.6. UNICEF, New York, NY. Note: UNICEF = United Nations Children’s Fund. 44 Leveraging Social Protection Programs for Improved Nutrition: Summary Global Forum on Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection Programs Towards Partnerships for Development Russian Federation SKU K8701