Informing Decisions with Disparate Stakeholders: Cross-Sector Evaluation of Cash Transfers in Malawi

Francesco Ramponi; Dominic Nkhoma; Susan Griffin

doi:10.1093/heapol/czab137

Informing Decisions with Disparate Stakeholders: Cross-Sector Evaluation of Cash Transfers in Malawi

Francesco Ramponi, Dominic Nkhoma, Susan Griffin

Centre for Health Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) in Malawi is a cross-sectoral policy with impacts on health, education, nutrition, agriculture and welfare. Implementation of the SCTP requires collaboration across sectors and across national and international stakeholders. Economic evaluation can inform investment by indicating whether benefits exceed costs, but economic evaluations that provide an overall benefit-cost ratio typically assume a common agreed objective and agreed set of value judgements. In reality, the various stakeholders involved in the delivery of the SCTP may have different remits and objectives, and may differ in how they value the impacts of the programme. We use the SCTP as a case study to illustrate a cross-sectoral analytical framework that accounts for these differences. The stakeholders that contribute to the SCTP include the Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, and Global Fund. We estimate how the SCTP changes outcomes in education, health, net production and poverty, and distinguish outcomes in three groups: SCTP recipients; population in Malawi not eligible for the SCTP; population in other countries. After estimating the direct effects and opportunity costs from investing in the SCTP, we summarise the results according to different perspectives. The SCTP is estimated to provide benefits in excess of costs from the perspective of national stakeholders. From the perspective of an international donor interested in health outcomes, its health benefits do not outweigh the opportunity costs unless health improvement in SCTP recipients is valued at eighteen times that of other potential spending beneficiaries or the donor values broader outcomes than health alone. This work illustrates the potential of a cross-sectoral economic evaluation to guide debate about stakeholder contributions to the SCTP, and the value judgements required to favour the SCTP above other policy options.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	140-151
Journal	Health Policy and Planning
Volume	37
Issue number	1
Early online date	18 Nov 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab137
Publication status	Published - Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1093/heapol/czab137Licence: CC BY

czab137
© The Author(s) 2021.
Final published version, 236 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{e037048bcd1e4c83b71300315f3431d8,

title = "Informing Decisions with Disparate Stakeholders: Cross-Sector Evaluation of Cash Transfers in Malawi",

abstract = "The Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) in Malawi is a cross-sectoral policy with impacts on health, education, nutrition, agriculture and welfare. Implementation of the SCTP requires collaboration across sectors and across national and international stakeholders. Economic evaluation can inform investment by indicating whether benefits exceed costs, but economic evaluations that provide an overall benefit-cost ratio typically assume a common agreed objective and agreed set of value judgements. In reality, the various stakeholders involved in the delivery of the SCTP may have different remits and objectives, and may differ in how they value the impacts of the programme. We use the SCTP as a case study to illustrate a cross-sectoral analytical framework that accounts for these differences. The stakeholders that contribute to the SCTP include the Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, and Global Fund. We estimate how the SCTP changes outcomes in education, health, net production and poverty, and distinguish outcomes in three groups: SCTP recipients; population in Malawi not eligible for the SCTP; population in other countries. After estimating the direct effects and opportunity costs from investing in the SCTP, we summarise the results according to different perspectives. The SCTP is estimated to provide benefits in excess of costs from the perspective of national stakeholders. From the perspective of an international donor interested in health outcomes, its health benefits do not outweigh the opportunity costs unless health improvement in SCTP recipients is valued at eighteen times that of other potential spending beneficiaries or the donor values broader outcomes than health alone. This work illustrates the potential of a cross-sectoral economic evaluation to guide debate about stakeholder contributions to the SCTP, and the value judgements required to favour the SCTP above other policy options.",

author = "Francesco Ramponi and Dominic Nkhoma and Susan Griffin",

note = "{\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.",

year = "2022",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1093/heapol/czab137",

language = "English",

volume = "37",

pages = "140--151",

journal = "Health Policy and Planning",

issn = "0268-1080",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Informing Decisions with Disparate Stakeholders

T2 - Cross-Sector Evaluation of Cash Transfers in Malawi

AU - Ramponi, Francesco

AU - Nkhoma, Dominic

AU - Griffin, Susan

N1 - © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

PY - 2022/1

Y1 - 2022/1

N2 - The Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) in Malawi is a cross-sectoral policy with impacts on health, education, nutrition, agriculture and welfare. Implementation of the SCTP requires collaboration across sectors and across national and international stakeholders. Economic evaluation can inform investment by indicating whether benefits exceed costs, but economic evaluations that provide an overall benefit-cost ratio typically assume a common agreed objective and agreed set of value judgements. In reality, the various stakeholders involved in the delivery of the SCTP may have different remits and objectives, and may differ in how they value the impacts of the programme. We use the SCTP as a case study to illustrate a cross-sectoral analytical framework that accounts for these differences. The stakeholders that contribute to the SCTP include the Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, and Global Fund. We estimate how the SCTP changes outcomes in education, health, net production and poverty, and distinguish outcomes in three groups: SCTP recipients; population in Malawi not eligible for the SCTP; population in other countries. After estimating the direct effects and opportunity costs from investing in the SCTP, we summarise the results according to different perspectives. The SCTP is estimated to provide benefits in excess of costs from the perspective of national stakeholders. From the perspective of an international donor interested in health outcomes, its health benefits do not outweigh the opportunity costs unless health improvement in SCTP recipients is valued at eighteen times that of other potential spending beneficiaries or the donor values broader outcomes than health alone. This work illustrates the potential of a cross-sectoral economic evaluation to guide debate about stakeholder contributions to the SCTP, and the value judgements required to favour the SCTP above other policy options.

AB - The Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) in Malawi is a cross-sectoral policy with impacts on health, education, nutrition, agriculture and welfare. Implementation of the SCTP requires collaboration across sectors and across national and international stakeholders. Economic evaluation can inform investment by indicating whether benefits exceed costs, but economic evaluations that provide an overall benefit-cost ratio typically assume a common agreed objective and agreed set of value judgements. In reality, the various stakeholders involved in the delivery of the SCTP may have different remits and objectives, and may differ in how they value the impacts of the programme. We use the SCTP as a case study to illustrate a cross-sectoral analytical framework that accounts for these differences. The stakeholders that contribute to the SCTP include the Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, and Global Fund. We estimate how the SCTP changes outcomes in education, health, net production and poverty, and distinguish outcomes in three groups: SCTP recipients; population in Malawi not eligible for the SCTP; population in other countries. After estimating the direct effects and opportunity costs from investing in the SCTP, we summarise the results according to different perspectives. The SCTP is estimated to provide benefits in excess of costs from the perspective of national stakeholders. From the perspective of an international donor interested in health outcomes, its health benefits do not outweigh the opportunity costs unless health improvement in SCTP recipients is valued at eighteen times that of other potential spending beneficiaries or the donor values broader outcomes than health alone. This work illustrates the potential of a cross-sectoral economic evaluation to guide debate about stakeholder contributions to the SCTP, and the value judgements required to favour the SCTP above other policy options.

U2 - 10.1093/heapol/czab137

DO - 10.1093/heapol/czab137

M3 - Article

C2 - 34791229

SN - 0268-1080

VL - 37

SP - 140

EP - 151

JO - Health Policy and Planning

JF - Health Policy and Planning

IS - 1

ER -