practical life

Cash services pay day loans

Cash services pay day loans

Cash service is programmes in developing countries are constrained by three factors: financial resources, institutional capacity and ideology. Governments in poor countries tend to restrict financial resources and therefore limit themselves to the amount they can directly invest in cash transfers and the measures necessary to ensure that such programmes are effective. The amount invested is influenced by the”value for money” study, as well as by political and ideological concerns about “free aid” and “dependency creation.” [3] Since indiscriminate allocations are not particularly effective, there are two main forms of targeting:

Financial resources survey.

Universal (every person in a social, geographical, age or other category of this kind).

Surveying the financial resources of potential recipients of cash transfers is more politically acceptable, as money is not seen to be lost by listing those who have no urgent need for money (“leakage”). This can be achieved either through a screening process for potential recipients, otherwise by making the benefits of remittances very low, only the most desperate apply to them. However, there are also many problems associated with this method, as the costs of conducting screening are very high, due to the need to pay for evaluation, the costs of travelling candidates to and from evaluation, as well as the potential risks of corruption. There may also be a negative impact on social capital as those who receive support from those who do not. [2]

The comprehensive method, i.e., the selection of all under-five, pensioners, disabled persons, female-headed families, etc., has many advantages because it increases social unity among a segment of society that benefits from the programme and avoids the costs of screening transactions. A comprehensive approach requires careful selection of a target group because some groups may cover more poor families, but include the least in need. Similarly, the narrower group of recipients carries risks, except for many of those who actually need support

Total amounts

These are single payments instead of split payments in time payments. Researchers at the Institute for External Development conducted a study on the effectiveness of the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation’s experiences with total cash transfers and concluded the following six results:

Lump-sum transfers work better in post-emergency situations than in development contexts because their rapid transfers to recipients are suited to the urgency of post-emergency needs.

The success of total remittances depends largely on the domestic market and whether there are long-term income-generating investments. Areas affected by the disease (such as HIV/AIDS) or other such problems are likely to benefit from regular small payments.

Economic conditions in addition to limited markets or limited investment opportunities are important, for example, if the volume of remittances far exceeds several years of local income beneficiaries, they are unlikely to be able to know how to invest cash wisely. Where there is a clear investment potential, care should be taken to support the recipient at the time of the investment’s maturity in the total amount, for example. A person who buys a cow still needs to eat pending long-term benefits (skin and milk) and so must be helped in order to ensure that they will not sell the cow.

While business planning, skills enhancement and training support are useful, if there is a clear investment opportunity (fishing boat, cow, etc.), this is usually enough.

Context should be considered, for example. People can’t build a house if they don’t get land.

Large cash transfers risk creating corruption or being used as a tool to gain political support for the Government.

Enormous economic, political and social implications


Many governments in poorer countries, where remittances are likely to have the most impressive impact, are often unwilling to implement such programmes due to fears of economic inflation and, most importantly, the dependence of remittances. [5] NGOs that encourage such schemes are often. If submitted, these programmes are often directed at the non-working poor (although the FSN programme is supported by the Department of Public Information

Monitoring and evaluation of cash transfer programmes

Ensuring the participation of poor communities in monitoring and evaluating social protection programmes — cash transfer programmes in particular — is supported by donors and Governments that see potential efficiency, legitimacy and satisfaction gains. Participatory monitoring and evaluation techniques and mechanisms are particularly effective in giving a voice to people who get money, and when they work well, they increase the responsibility of governments, local officials and programme executors.

Qualitative and participatory research by the Institute for External Development (in Kenya, Mozambique, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Uganda and Yemen) investigating individuals’ and communities’ perceptions of cash transfer programmes [7] reveals that funds have a number of potential positive and transformative impacts on the lives of individuals and families they receive, including:

People prefer cash over other forms of assistance (food aid, public works, etc.) because it gives them the freedom to spend money on things they feel they need.

People experience an increase in their standard of living, for example, and are able to build permanent shelters, receive three meals a day, and pay for health-related costs.

More children attending school as a result of receiving the transfer.

Vulnerable or particularly excluded beneficiaries felt that they were now able to meet their families’ basic needs, giving them greater economic freedom, security  

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button