Zambia’s rural households face recurrent climate shocks, thin markets, and persistent poverty, which heighten vulnerability and limit productive investment. In this context, work‑conditional social protection programmes such as Food‑for‑Work (FFW) and Cash‑for‑Work (CFW) aim to stabilise consumption while building community assets. Yet evidence on their comparative effectiveness remains fragmented and sensitive to market conditions, seasonality, and implementation quality.
This thesis assesses FFW and CFW in Zambia, examining targeting accuracy, delivery efficiency, asset quality, and cost‑effectiveness, alongside impacts on food security, diversification, savings, debt, assets, labour allocation, and subjective well‑being. Special attention is given to heterogeneity by market access, timing within agricultural calendars, gender, and shock exposure. A mixed‑methods design combines a three‑wave household panel with qualitative process data. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting construct comparable groups, followed by difference‑in‑differences and fixed‑effects models; instrumental variables address potential endogeneity. Standardised indicators including HDDS, FCS, CSI, PMT scores, and Simpson Index guide measurement.
Results show both modalities reduce negative coping and stabilise consumption. CFW yields greater improvements in dietary diversity and flexibility where markets and payment systems function well. FFW performs better in remote areas, during price spikes, and in lean seasons by guaranteeing staple supplies. Timing is critical: pre‑lean‑season transfers reduce distress sales and improve input access. CFW supports small enterprise entry, savings, and livestock gains; FFW protects schooling, meal frequency, and labour productivity. Both reduce high‑interest borrowing, though via different channels.
Implementation quality strongly shapes outcomes. FFW faces logistical risks, while CFW is vulnerable to payment delays and inflation. Cost‑effectiveness varies by geography, with CFW cheaper in connected areas and FFW preferable where cash conversion is costly. Gender effects show increased autonomy under CFW and reduced budgeting stress under FFW, moderated by childcare and worksite conditions.
- Quote paper
- Maliro Ngoma (Author), 2026, Evaluating Food-for-Work and Cash-for-Work Interventions in Zambia, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1698384
