We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Promoted as a means of fueling markets and encouraging economic growth or recovery, cash transfers have become a popular approach to international assistance. The literature recognizes potential problems such as insecurity, corruption, misuse, gender inequality, market inflation, and ineffective targeting. We carried out population and beneficiary surveys in 1997 to evaluate the targeting of cash transfers in Bosnia soon after the end of the conflict.
Methods
The population survey visited a random sample of clusters from population registers in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Republika Srpska (RS). A directly administered questionnaire asked households whether they received any cash handouts from the Municipal Welfare Office in the last year, and, if so, for what purpose, the amount, and how they used the money. We calculated coverage and inclusion and exclusion errors of the program. The field team also identified cash transfers beneficiaries from official lists of the program and attempted to contact a random sample of them to ask about their experience.
Results
It was not possible to confirm receipts of cash in one third of the sample of 840 named beneficiaries; 19% could not be traced and 17% of those found denied receiving any cash. In the general population survey of 7182 households, coverage rates with cash assistance (11% in BiH, 3% in RS) were at least 44% lower than those declared by the distribution agencies, with considerable variation between cantons. Exclusion errors were high: 83% of those eligible according to the program's income criterion did not receive any cash. Although sufficient cash was dispensed to reach every United Nations High Commission for Refugees priority 1 (most needy) household, only 13% of these households (278/2125) admitted receiving any cash. Inclusion errors were also high: 60% of all of those who received cash were not in the priority 1 category and 46% were not eligible according to the program's income criterion. Extrapolating from the population survey findings, we could only account for a maximum of US$4 million received by households in BiH and RS up to May 1997, of the US$16 million dispersed by the program up to that time.
Conclusions
Targeting of the cash transfers program was poor, with large inclusion and exclusion errors. Much of the disbursed cash apparently did not reach the intended beneficiaries and could not be accounted for. Agencies on the ground did not have the necessary skills to handle the disbursements or to train national organizations to do so. (Disaster Med Public Health Prepardness. 2013;7:232-240)