To Help Syrian Refugees, Give Cash to the Women
A
new initiative introduced by the White House and some of America’s prominent
tech firms designed to increase aid to Syrian refugees has generated an outpour
of support from the public. On Tuesday October 7th Kickstarter launched a campaign
to raise $1,225,000 for the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). By the time
the campaign finished, they raised nearly $1.8 million from 27,669 supporters.
Donors could give $15 to purchase a sleeping bag, or $160 to help build
shelters. Instacart also got in the game, allowing customers to donate food to
refugees after purchasing their own groceries.
These campaigns display the amazing power of collective action, the influence of the tech sector, and the deep compassion moving Americans who feel a sense of moral obligation to come to the aid of the stranger in a time of crisis. While I am happy to witness this beautiful movement of empathy and action, there is still a flaw in the end product that needs to be addressed. Like most aid programs, this effort is raising money in order to facilitate the distribution of in-kind donations like food, first-aid kits, and sleeping bags. Many researchers, activists, and practitioners are calling for more direct cash transfers to assist refugees instead of in-kind assistance. Not only will cash be a more efficient way of providing aid to families in need, but if put in the hands of the right people (i.e. women) cash assistance could help mitigate some of the most pervasive problems of refugee life including gender-based violence and child labor.
These campaigns display the amazing power of collective action, the influence of the tech sector, and the deep compassion moving Americans who feel a sense of moral obligation to come to the aid of the stranger in a time of crisis. While I am happy to witness this beautiful movement of empathy and action, there is still a flaw in the end product that needs to be addressed. Like most aid programs, this effort is raising money in order to facilitate the distribution of in-kind donations like food, first-aid kits, and sleeping bags. Many researchers, activists, and practitioners are calling for more direct cash transfers to assist refugees instead of in-kind assistance. Not only will cash be a more efficient way of providing aid to families in need, but if put in the hands of the right people (i.e. women) cash assistance could help mitigate some of the most pervasive problems of refugee life including gender-based violence and child labor.
Why Cash Transfers?
As the Kickstarter campaign demonstrates, most aid agencies are
providing in-kind assistance in the form of goods like food, clothes, and
household necessities. Many in the field are beginning to question this
practice because delivering in-kind aid is inefficient and does not always
reflect the needs of the recipients. More humanitarian agencies have started
using cash transfers, but last year only
6% of humanitarian aid was distributed in the form of cash or vouchers.
Scholarship on cash transfers suggests that it might be one of the most effective tools for improving the lives of the poor and responding to humanitarian crises. A famous study by Columbia University’s Christopher Blattman in Uganda found that an unconditional cash transfer was widely used by youth to improve human capital development. Earnings increased 50% over four years, with women registering the greatest benefit. Another well-known paper found that unconditional cash transfers in rural Kenya increased consumption on education, food, and medical expenses.
Refugee populations can similarly benefit from cash transfer programs. It gives them a greater degree of autonomy, restores capabilities, and allows them to decide how to use their resources in a way that best reflects the needs of the family. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) conducted a cash transfer experiment in Lebanon, providing 90,000 households with $100 per month. The study found that families were able to meet their basic needs as well as increase spending on education. The program also had a positive impact on local markets, creating over $2 of new business activity for every $1 spent on the program.
There is certainly a demand for more cash in refugee communities. A study released last year found that 70% of refugees in Iraq had traded food from aid agencies, particularly rice, in exchange for cash. 80% of refugees in Lebanon that took part in the IRC experiment said they preferred cash assistance to in-kind assistance. So if there is a demand for cash, and ample evidence that it is more efficient and effective than in-kind assistance, what is stopping more agencies from adopting this method?
There are several reasons agencies might have for wanting to stick with the status quo. However, one common concern has to do with how impoverished people handle financial handouts. Many people who live in poverty have trouble delaying gratification because of a scarcity mindset. In their position, thinking about the future and making wise investments are daunting tasks. Many will (seemingly) throw away cash on little pleasures like sweet tea, cigarettes, and other vices. We certainly do not want to subsidize bad decisions and smoking habits, the thinking goes.
Such speculation troubles wealthy donors and aid agencies. However, students of gender and development economics have an answer that should ease their minds and warm donors to the idea of cash transfers. Decades of scholarship have revealed that not all demographics use money the same way. There is empirical evidence that there is a “safer bet” when deciding who to give cash to, and that safer bet tends to be women. This is good news for aid agencies working to address the Syrian crisis, as women make up the majority of refugees in many countries. Additionally, a cash transfer program that prioritizes women will likely decrease child labor, increase school participation, and decrease gender-based violence.
Scholarship on cash transfers suggests that it might be one of the most effective tools for improving the lives of the poor and responding to humanitarian crises. A famous study by Columbia University’s Christopher Blattman in Uganda found that an unconditional cash transfer was widely used by youth to improve human capital development. Earnings increased 50% over four years, with women registering the greatest benefit. Another well-known paper found that unconditional cash transfers in rural Kenya increased consumption on education, food, and medical expenses.
Refugee populations can similarly benefit from cash transfer programs. It gives them a greater degree of autonomy, restores capabilities, and allows them to decide how to use their resources in a way that best reflects the needs of the family. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) conducted a cash transfer experiment in Lebanon, providing 90,000 households with $100 per month. The study found that families were able to meet their basic needs as well as increase spending on education. The program also had a positive impact on local markets, creating over $2 of new business activity for every $1 spent on the program.
There is certainly a demand for more cash in refugee communities. A study released last year found that 70% of refugees in Iraq had traded food from aid agencies, particularly rice, in exchange for cash. 80% of refugees in Lebanon that took part in the IRC experiment said they preferred cash assistance to in-kind assistance. So if there is a demand for cash, and ample evidence that it is more efficient and effective than in-kind assistance, what is stopping more agencies from adopting this method?
There are several reasons agencies might have for wanting to stick with the status quo. However, one common concern has to do with how impoverished people handle financial handouts. Many people who live in poverty have trouble delaying gratification because of a scarcity mindset. In their position, thinking about the future and making wise investments are daunting tasks. Many will (seemingly) throw away cash on little pleasures like sweet tea, cigarettes, and other vices. We certainly do not want to subsidize bad decisions and smoking habits, the thinking goes.
Such speculation troubles wealthy donors and aid agencies. However, students of gender and development economics have an answer that should ease their minds and warm donors to the idea of cash transfers. Decades of scholarship have revealed that not all demographics use money the same way. There is empirical evidence that there is a “safer bet” when deciding who to give cash to, and that safer bet tends to be women. This is good news for aid agencies working to address the Syrian crisis, as women make up the majority of refugees in many countries. Additionally, a cash transfer program that prioritizes women will likely decrease child labor, increase school participation, and decrease gender-based violence.
Give the Cash to the Women
Research shows that women and men use money in significantly different ways. Duncan Thomas studied intra-household resource allocation in Brazil and found that income in the hands of women rather than men is more likely to be dedicated to improving family welfare. He also found that when women controlled resources the probability of child survival increased by a factor of twenty. Likewise, a study by Hoddinott and Haddad* found similar results in Cote D’Ivoire, confirming that increasing a woman’s share of the household budget results in more of the budget being allocated to food and nutrition for the family. Similarly, a study by Khogali and Takhar** found that women who participated in Oxfam’s cash-for-work program after the 2001 floods in Bangladesh had a higher propensity to save for family emergencies than their male counterparts (who often spent disposable income on items like cigarettes). Khogali and Takhar also found that the flood victims responded better to cash transfers than food donations.
Women of prime caretaker-age are prominent in Middle East refugee communities. Take a look at some statistics from UNHCR:
Research shows that women and men use money in significantly different ways. Duncan Thomas studied intra-household resource allocation in Brazil and found that income in the hands of women rather than men is more likely to be dedicated to improving family welfare. He also found that when women controlled resources the probability of child survival increased by a factor of twenty. Likewise, a study by Hoddinott and Haddad* found similar results in Cote D’Ivoire, confirming that increasing a woman’s share of the household budget results in more of the budget being allocated to food and nutrition for the family. Similarly, a study by Khogali and Takhar** found that women who participated in Oxfam’s cash-for-work program after the 2001 floods in Bangladesh had a higher propensity to save for family emergencies than their male counterparts (who often spent disposable income on items like cigarettes). Khogali and Takhar also found that the flood victims responded better to cash transfers than food donations.
Women of prime caretaker-age are prominent in Middle East refugee communities. Take a look at some statistics from UNHCR:
According to the latest data, women between the ages of 18
and 59 have become the largest demographic among refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.
Knowing what we know about how women tend to use money compared to men, this
provides aid agencies with a great opportunity: empower these women by making them
the primary targets of cash assistance programs, and we will likely see significant
progress in the well-being of the most vulnerable, particularly as it relates women’s
security and children’s education.
Observers will note that the Syrian refugee crisis has been particularly hard on women. Syrian women experience high incidence of gender-based violence both in the household and in the refugee community at large. Focus group discussions conducted by UN Women suggest there is increasing social pressure on women to marry younger since girls are seen as additional cost burdens on the family and can generate revenue from the bride price that suitors are expected to pay to their would be in-laws. Women experience limited mobility, with one-fifth of girls reporting that they almost never leave the house.
Research suggests that when women control income or assets, they experience an increase in their household bargaining power. This can reverse the trend of seeing women as an economic burden. Increasing their status in the household should likewise reduce gender-based violence in the home. Additionally, providing women with greater control of aid assets will have significant impact on the well-being of children.
According to an earlier UNICEF study, 70% of Syrian refugee children are not attending school regularly. These children are missing out on critical years for education and development that will impact the entire generation for years to come. Many youth are missing school to find informal employment to help their families make ends meet since host governments have imposed severe restrictions on refugee work eligibility. A survey conducted by UN Women reports that child labor contributions exist in 47% of refugee households earning any income. 15% of households earning income reported child labor as their primary source of income. 80% of child workers are boys, and the 20% of child workers who are girls are employed in agriculture or as domestic workers, which are known for high incidences of abuse. By providing cash assistance, we will be reducing the need to send children to work. Since we are channeling funds through women, we can expect to see greater investment in education, which should boost school participation rates and reduce child labor.
Observers will note that the Syrian refugee crisis has been particularly hard on women. Syrian women experience high incidence of gender-based violence both in the household and in the refugee community at large. Focus group discussions conducted by UN Women suggest there is increasing social pressure on women to marry younger since girls are seen as additional cost burdens on the family and can generate revenue from the bride price that suitors are expected to pay to their would be in-laws. Women experience limited mobility, with one-fifth of girls reporting that they almost never leave the house.
Research suggests that when women control income or assets, they experience an increase in their household bargaining power. This can reverse the trend of seeing women as an economic burden. Increasing their status in the household should likewise reduce gender-based violence in the home. Additionally, providing women with greater control of aid assets will have significant impact on the well-being of children.
According to an earlier UNICEF study, 70% of Syrian refugee children are not attending school regularly. These children are missing out on critical years for education and development that will impact the entire generation for years to come. Many youth are missing school to find informal employment to help their families make ends meet since host governments have imposed severe restrictions on refugee work eligibility. A survey conducted by UN Women reports that child labor contributions exist in 47% of refugee households earning any income. 15% of households earning income reported child labor as their primary source of income. 80% of child workers are boys, and the 20% of child workers who are girls are employed in agriculture or as domestic workers, which are known for high incidences of abuse. By providing cash assistance, we will be reducing the need to send children to work. Since we are channeling funds through women, we can expect to see greater investment in education, which should boost school participation rates and reduce child labor.
Conclusion
With so many women of prime caretaker-age taking refuge in the region, there is good reason to believe that cash assistance will make a tremendous impact on the most vulnerable migrants including women and children. By targeting women I do not mean to imply that men should be excluded from receiving assistance. However, the demographic prominence of women in refugee communities will likely make a cash transfer program uniquely successful. The focus of outreach and registration efforts should target women and a scheme should be devised where the amount of cash received by a refugee is determined by household scenario and number of dependents.
Cash assistance is the best hope for providing efficient relief, improving the lives of the most vulnerable refugees, and making sure that Syria’s next generation is sufficiently educated. I believe women, if given the resources, will prove to be the heroes of this crisis and disseminate hope and opportunity in ways aid agencies cannot. According to the Hadith, or sayings of the prophet, Muhammad once said, “paradise is beneath your mother’s feet.” Indeed, the humanitarian aid community might find that the key to success lies with Syria’s mothers.
With so many women of prime caretaker-age taking refuge in the region, there is good reason to believe that cash assistance will make a tremendous impact on the most vulnerable migrants including women and children. By targeting women I do not mean to imply that men should be excluded from receiving assistance. However, the demographic prominence of women in refugee communities will likely make a cash transfer program uniquely successful. The focus of outreach and registration efforts should target women and a scheme should be devised where the amount of cash received by a refugee is determined by household scenario and number of dependents.
Cash assistance is the best hope for providing efficient relief, improving the lives of the most vulnerable refugees, and making sure that Syria’s next generation is sufficiently educated. I believe women, if given the resources, will prove to be the heroes of this crisis and disseminate hope and opportunity in ways aid agencies cannot. According to the Hadith, or sayings of the prophet, Muhammad once said, “paradise is beneath your mother’s feet.” Indeed, the humanitarian aid community might find that the key to success lies with Syria’s mothers.
*Hoddinott,J., andL.
Haddad."DoesFemaleIncome Share Influence Household ExpenditurePatterns?
Evidence from C6te d'Ivoire." Oxford Bull. Econ. and Statist. in press,
1994.
**Khogali, Hisham and
Takhar, Parmjit “Empowering Women
through Cash Relief in Humanitarian Contexts” Gender and Development, Vol. 9, No. 3, Humanitarian Work (Nov.,
2001), pp. 40-49
Comments
Post a Comment