Zap It to Me: The Short-Term Impacts of a Mobile Cash Transfer Program

Conditional and unconditional cash transfers have been effective in improving development outcomes in a variety of contexts, yet the costs of these programs to program recipients and implementing agencies are rarely discussed. The introduction of mobile money transfer systems in many developing countries offers new opportunities for a more cost-effective means of implementing cash transfer programs. This paper reports on the first randomized evaluation of a cash transfer program delivered via the mobile phone. In response to a devastating drought in Niger, households in targeted villages received monthly cash transfers as part of a social protection program. One-third of targeted villages received a monthly cash transfer via a mobile money transfer system (called zap), whereas one-third received manual cash transfers and the remaining one-third received manual cash transfers plus a mobile phone. We show that the zap delivery mechanism strongly reduced the variable distribution costs for the implementing agency, as well as program recipients’ costs of obtaining the cash transfer. The zap approach also resulted in additional benefits: households in zap villages used their cash transfer to purchase a more diverse set of goods, had higher diet diversity, depleted fewer assets and grew more types of crops, especially marginal cash crops grown by women. We posit that the potential mechanisms underlying these results are the lower costs and greater privacy of the receiving the cash transfer via the zap mechanism, as well as changes in intra-household decision-making. This suggests that m-transfers could be a cost-effective means of providing cash transfers for remote rural populations, especially those with limited road and financial infrastructure. However, research on the broader welfare effects in the short- and long-term is still needed.

[1]  Esther Duflo,et al.  Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Policy in Developing Countries: A General Framework with Applications for Education , 2013 .

[2]  Leigh L. Linden,et al.  Improving the Design of Conditional Transfer Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Education Experiment in Colombia † , 2011 .

[3]  Olga Morawczynski,et al.  Poor people using mobile financial services : observations on customer usage and impact from M-PESA , 2009 .

[4]  Owen Ozier,et al.  Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem? Experimental Evidence from Village Economies , 2012 .

[5]  Nathan Eagle,et al.  Risk and Reciprocity Over the Mobile Phone Network: Evidence from Rwanda , 2011 .

[6]  D. McKenzie,et al.  The Impacts of International Migration on Remaining Household Members: Omnibus Results from a Migration Lottery Program , 2009, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[8]  J. Aker,et al.  Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa , 2010 .

[9]  R. Townsend,et al.  Monetary Theory and Electronic Money: Reflections on the Kenyan Experience , 2010 .

[10]  J. Aker Information from Markets Near and Far: Mobile Phones and Agricultural Markets in Niger , 2010 .

[11]  D. Weil,et al.  Mobile Banking: The Impact of M-Pesa in Kenya , 2011 .

[12]  A. Janvry,et al.  Uninsured risk and asset protection: can conditional cash transfer programs serve as safety nets? , 2006 .

[13]  Niall Keleher,et al.  Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty , 2009 .

[14]  Matthias Doepke,et al.  Does female empowerment promote economic development? , 2011, Journal of Economic Growth.

[15]  S. Baird,et al.  Cash Or Condition ? Evidence From A Randomized Cash Transfer Program , 2010 .

[16]  Giacomo De Giorgi,et al.  The Price Effects of Cash versus In-Kind Transfers , 2011 .