How conditional cash transfers can perpetuate gender stereotypes

This post is written by Aylén Rodríguez Ferrari, social protection and jobs consultant at the World Bank.

• The problem: Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes have neglected women's needs in the programme design, reinforcing gender roles and inequality.
• Why it matters: CCTs positively impact many development indicators, but we are not taking advantage of their full potential in addressing gender inequalities.
• The solution: Rethink conditionality and non-compliance issues. Women can share responsibilities with their male partners, still being cash recipients.

Conditional Cash Transfer programmes (CCTs) are an important tool of social protection policies. They proved to positively impact poverty reduction and children’s health, education, and nutrition. They have also been considered gender-sensitive programmes as they reach women specifically. However, recent studies show that CCTs can perpetuate gender stereotypes if not correctly designed.

The strategy of targeting women as direct recipients is based on a twofold assumption: i) women spend more resources on their family's needs than their male partners; ii) managing the household’s economic resources promotes women’s empowerment and decision-making. Nevertheless, policy evaluations show that although CCTs target women, they do not consider women’s needs and priorities in the programme design. Thus, contrary to initial thoughts, CCTs are not gender-sensitive.

Recent studies show that CCTs can perpetuate gender stereotypes if not correctly designed.

The lack of a gender perspective causes the unintended effect of maintaining the female-caregiver and male-breadwinner roles. For instance, cash transfer programmes conditional on sending children to school and taking them to health check-ups and vaccinations put additional burdens on women’s time, limiting their education, training, and job opportunities, while relieving men of any responsibility for these tasks.

Doing it better

Adopting a gender approach in CCTs design would help us and the communities get the most out of these programmes. We could use cash transfers as gender transformative tools too. To do that, some factors need to be analysed:

1. Mothers as cash recipients and in charge of meeting the conditions. As mentioned above, this requirement incentivises the unequal distribution of unpaid work. In other words, the targeting design limits the women’s available time for paid work, education, and leisure to be devoted to caring work.
2. Related to the first factor, women are accountable for compliance. Not meeting the programme’s conditions may result in the termination of the transfers. Because this responsibility falls on women, the non-compliance may lead to social stigma, increase domestic tensions and expose women to domestic violence.
3. The requirements create unfair labour competition and incentivise indirect discrimination. In the eyes of an employer, men are better and more committed employees than women as they don’t have to deal with family responsibilities. Women will need to take time off from work frequently due to family duties, so they will not compete on an equal basis with men, and the employer will prefer to hire men workers.
4. The cash amount covers basic needs. It is not enough to help women get economic independence.

Next steps

CCTs can have a positive holistic impact not only on poverty reduction, health, education, and nutrition but also on gender equality. How can we do that?

1. Rethink the design and implementation of CCTs to ensure they are gender-sensitive. It is necessary to understand the local context, social norms, and household dynamics to address the barriers women face. Adapted solutions must be incorporated into the design programme. For instance, if collecting and managing cash might be a security problem, providing more options for payment, like mobile money or banking correspondents, can be a solution. If the amount of money can lead to a potential increase in domestic violence, adjusting the size or the payment frequency can be a solution. Establish health service delivery points close to households, provide transport options during vaccination times, etc.
2. Reconsider conditionality issues. It shouldn’t be a condition of who is in charge of the specific task. In fact, the attendance requirement, for instance, could be used as a powerful incentive to promote men’s engagement in household chores and family balance.
3. Look for synergies with other social protection programmes. In particular, family-work programmes that promote family balance, and aim to transform gender roles and redistribute unpaid care work. For example, affordable and quality childcare and paid family leave.
4. Promote community support to address logistical issues and create community bonding, especially in terms of domestic violence and access to jobs and training.

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)