dc.description.abstract |
One of the most popular methods for reducing poverty in Africa, and specifically
Tanzania, is cash transfer (CT). However, variables like targeting errors and
households' economic decisions limit its impact on numerous aspects of household
economic wellbeing. Understanding how these aspects impact the programme's
implementation can help in its reform and expansion for improved outcomes. Thus,
the present study was conducted in Lindi District to (i) assesses community
perceptions on Community Based Targeting (CBT) Mechanism and determine
households‘ factors influencing community perception on the transfers (ii) examine
the impact of CTs on households‘ spending patterns (iii) determine the effect of CTs
programmes on households‘ food demand and (iv) evaluate the impact of CTs on
poverty reduction.Community perceptions on CBT where analysed using descriptive
statistics and factor analysis, and ordinal logit regression was employed to determine
households‘ factors influencing community perception of CBT. Mann-Whitney U test
was used to assess the difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households
on their perception of CBT mechanism. Community perceived performance of the
mechanism as average, although complaints of exclusion and inclusion errors were
reported. Moreover, the study indicates that sex and participation status of
respondents influenced community perception of CBT mechanism. Beneficiary
households were more likely to be aware of the villages‘ meetings conducted to
nominate eligible households than non-beneficiary households. Furthermore, the
Working Leser Model was used to assess how CTs affected household spending
patterns. The study used Propensity Score Matching (PSM) to address the issue of
endogeneity which was brought on by the use of the Working Leser model. Marginal
budget shares and demand elasticities were calculated using Working Leser model
coefficients. The results showed that CTs have a negative influence on the share of
the budget allocated to food and favourable impact on the share allocated to non-food
and health expenses. Consumables like food and utilities were seen as necessities by
both non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries, but durables, investment assets, non-food
items, health, and education were regarded as a luxury goods. Moreover, to assess the
CT effect on food demand and its implications on food security, Ordinary Least
Square (OLS) model adjusted to fit in Almost Ideal Demand Framework was
adopted. The study employed the Instrumental Variable (IV) technique to address the
challenge of endogeneity. Findings indicated that CTs has effect on demand for roots
xv
and tubers, cereals and vegetables. Roots and tubers are staple foods while cereals
are substitute foods in Lindi District, implying that, as the income rises, poor
households demand for staple foods together with their substitute side dishes tend to
increase. The study also evaluated the impact of CT on households‘ overall wealth,
housing conditions, use of basic services, and productive and non-productive assets
by employing Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Nearest Neighbour, Radius caliper
and Mahalanobis matching techniques were used to match beneficiaries‘ and nonbeneficiaries‘ households. Findings indicated that CTs has no significant impact on
overall poverty level of recipients‘ households. Thus, small monthly free handouts to
poor households by themselves are not enough to significantly reduce extreme
poverty. However, the results indicated significant effect of CTs on five poverty
indicators, which are; type of floor, sanitation facilities, livestock, mobile phone
phone and chair. In conclusion, the study indicates that even though small, consistent
cash transfer programmes have a noticeable influence on household spending patterns
in Tanzania, they are inadequate in eradicating extreme poverty. The study
recommends to the Central Government, and TASAF in particular to develop
comprehensive multi-intervention programmes capable of significantly influencing
various poverty indicators and addressing different aspects of household povert |
en_US |