Abstract
Many methodologies exist for dividing a population into those who are classified as eligible for social transfers and those who are ineligible. Popular targeting mechanisms include means tests, proxy means tests, categorical, geographic, community-based and self-selection. This paper reviews empirical evidence from a range of social protection programmes on the accuracy of these mechanisms, in terms of minimising four targeting errors: inclusion and exclusion, by eligibility and by poverty. This paper also reviews available evidence on the various costs associated with targeting, not only administrative but also private, social, psycho-social, incentive-based and political costs. Comparisons are difficult, but all mechanisms generate targeting errors and costs. Given the inevitability of trade-offs, there is no ‘best’ mechanism for targeting social transfers. The key determinant of relative accuracy and cost-effectiveness in each case is how well the targeting mechanism is designed and implemented.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 162-211 |
| Number of pages | 50 |
| Journal | Journal of Development Effectiveness |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 3 Apr 2017 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 1 No Poverty
Keywords
- inclusion and exclusion errors
- targeting costs
- Targeting mechanisms
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Development
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The targeting effectiveness of social transfers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS