Emergency Economies: The Impact of Cash Assistance in Lebanon

Western Asia

Lebanon

Social Protection

Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT)

C Lehmann, D Masterson

2014

Lehman, C, Masterson, D (2014). Emergency Economies: The Impact of Cash Assistance in Lebanon. An Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Winter Cash Assistance Program for Syrian Refugees in Lebanon. International Rescue Committee.
View publication

Primary Data: N. A. Website of the sponsor: https://www.rescue-uk.org/.

2014

N. A.

November 2013 – April 2014 (duration of the cash transfer)

Make sure that registered Syrian refugees in Lebanon would be warm and dry during cold winter months.

Households residing above 500-meters altitude.

The study compared households residing slightly below 500 meters that did not receive cash (but would have received it if they had been residing above 500 meters) with households residing slightly above 500 meters that did receive cash (but would not have received it if they had been residing below 500 meters). The same demographic criteria were used at all altitudes to calculate vulnerability. Because of Lebanon’s topography, the distribution of registered Syrian households living between 450 and 550 meters covers nearly the entire country, running from the north in Akkar to the south in Bint Jbeil. Respondents who researchers could contact were surveyed wherever they were currently living. In November 2013, when the program began, survey respondents lived in 15 of Lebanon’s 25 districts (aqdia). Due to the fact that beneficiaries moved between the beginning and end of the program, the Research Team conducted interviews in all 25 districts. The demographic criteria calculated a vulnerability score based on a weighted sum of the number of children ages 0-2, children ages 3-4, children ages 5-12, children ages 13-15, and children ages 16-18 (plus other age ranges for adults).

• School enrollment
• Child labour

Regression Discontinuity Design

Study design: the study compared beneficiaries residing slightly above 500 meters (treatment group) to similar non-beneficiaries residing slightly below (control group).
Sample: the final sample size was 1,361 people, but with a high attrition rate: 24-26 percent, including a 3.5% refusal rate.
Survey Instrument: a questionnaire consisted of 226 questions. The primary respondent in each household was the person mainly responsible for how the household spends its money. An interview took about one hour

Cash assistance may help increase access to school and reduce child labor. In this study, the control group had about 33 percent of children enrolled in school compared to about 39 percent in the treatment group. The conclusion that child labour may be reduced with cash assistance was based on a survey that asked: “During the last month, did your household have to do any of the following things because there was not enough money to buy essentials for living? [send your child to work]”. About 10 percent of households in the control group had to send children to work, compared to four percent in the treatment group.

Child Labour

Households

National

Cash assistance helps reduce child labour in Lebanon. The conclusion that child labour may be reduced with cash assistance was based on a survey that asked: “During the last month, did your household have to do any of the following things because there was not enough money to buy essentials for living? [send your child to work]”. About 10 percent of households in the control group had to send children to work, compared to four percent in the treatment group.

Cash assistance may help increase access to school. In this study, the control group had about 33 percent of children enrolled in school compared to about 39 percent in the treatment group.

Other relevant findings: households receiving cash assistance reduced less frequently the number of meals per day and the portion of meal sizes. In addition, they restricted consumption by adults for children to eat less frequently. Additional note: the study estimates the impact of cash when a small amount ($575) was delivered per household over the course of five months. The findings offer suggestive evidence, but do not prove, what would happen with a different amount or timeframe.