Conditional, unconditional and everything in between: a systematic review of the effects of cash transfer programmes on schooling outcomes
Conditional, unconditional and everything in between: a systematic review of the effects of cash transfer programmes on schooling outcomes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/19439342.2014.890362
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-02
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Woolcock, Michael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baird, Sarah;Ferreira, Francisco H. G.;Woolcock, Michael
现金转移方案是发展中国家一个受欢迎的社会保障工具，其目的除其他外，是改善发展中国家的教育成果。关于这些方案是否应包括条件的辩论一直是最近政策讨论的重点。这一系统性审查旨在补充关于这些方案在改善教育成果方面的有效性的现有证据，并帮助为围绕现金转移方案设计的辩论提供信息。使用涵盖35项不同研究的75份报告的数据，作者发现，与没有现金转移计划相比，有条件现金转移（CCT）和无条件现金转移（UCT）都提高了入学和上学的几率。入学率和出勤率的效应量对于CCT总是大于UCT，但差异没有统计学意义。当方案被归类为没有上学条件、有一些条件的监测和执行最少、有明确的条件的监测和执行时，一个更清晰的模式出现了，即明确有条件、监测遵守情况和惩罚不遵守情况的方案具有更大的效果（入学率提高60%）。与入学率和出勤率不同，现金转移支付方案在提高考试成绩方面的效果充其量是很小的。需要更多的研究来检查长期结果，如考试成绩，更普遍地说，评估UCT的影响。
Cash transfer programmes are a popular social protection tool in developing countries that aim, among other things, to improve education outcomes in developing countries. The debate over whether these programmes should include conditions has been at the forefront of recent policy discussions. This systematic review aims to complement the existing evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes in improving schooling outcomes and help inform the debate surrounding the design of cash transfer programmes. Using data from 75 reports that cover 35 different studies, the authors find that both conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) improve the odds of being enrolled in and attending school compared to no cash transfer programme. The effect sizes for enrolment and attendance are always larger for CCTs compared to UCTs, but the difference is not statistically significant. When programmes are categorised as having no schooling conditions, having some conditions with minimal monitoring and enforcement and having explicit conditions that are monitored and enforced, a much clearer pattern emerges whereby programmes that are explicitly conditional, monitor compliance and penalise non-compliance have substantively larger effects (60% improvement in odds of enrolment). Unlike enrolment and attendance, the effectiveness of cash transfer programmes on improving test scores is small at best. More research is needed that examines longer-term outcomes such as test scores and, more generally, evaluating the impacts of UCTs.