Skovdal Morten, Robertson Laura, Mushati Phyllis, Dumba Lovemore, Sherr Lorraine, Nyamukapa Constance, Gregson Simon
Institute of Social Psychology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK, Save the Children, 1 St John's Lane, EC1M 4AR, London, UK, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Praed Street, W2 1NY, London, UK, Biomedical Research and Training Institute, No. 10 Seagrave Road, Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe, Catholic Relief Services, 95 Park Lane, Harare, Zimbabwe and Department of Infection and Population Health, Royal Free Hospital, Rowland Hill Street, NW3 2PF, University College London, London, UK Institute of Social Psychology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK, Save the Children, 1 St John's Lane, EC1M 4AR, London, UK, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Praed Street, W2 1NY, London, UK, Biomedical Research and Training Institute, No. 10 Seagrave Road, Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe, Catholic Relief Services, 95 Park Lane, Harare, Zimbabwe and Department of Infection and Population Health, Royal Free Hospital, Rowland Hill Street, NW3 2PF, University College London, London, UK
Institute of Social Psychology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK, Save the Children, 1 St John's Lane, EC1M 4AR, London, UK, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Praed Street, W2 1NY, London, UK, Biomedical Research and Training Institute, No. 10 Seagrave Road, Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe, Catholic Relief Services, 95 Park Lane, Harare, Zimbabwe and Department of Infection and Population Health, Royal Free Hospital, Rowland Hill Street, NW3 2PF, University College London, London, UK.
Health Policy Plan. 2014 Oct;29(7):809-17. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czt060. Epub 2013 Sep 9.
Evidence suggests that a regular and reliable transfer of cash to households with orphaned and vulnerable children has a strong and positive effect on child outcomes. However, conditional cash transfers are considered by some as particularly intrusive and the question on whether or not to apply conditions to cash transfers is an issue of controversy. Contributing to policy debates on the appropriateness of conditions, this article sets out to investigate the overall buy-in of conditions by different stakeholders and to identify pathways that contribute to an acceptability of conditions. The article draws on data from a cluster-randomized trial of a community-led cash transfer programme in Manicaland, eastern Zimbabwe. An endpoint survey distributed to 5167 households assessed community members' acceptance of conditions and 35 in-depth interviews and 3 focus groups with a total of 58 adults and 4 youth examined local perceptions of conditions. The study found a significant and widespread acceptance of conditions primarily because they were seen as fair and a proxy for good parenting or guardianship. In a socio-economic context where child grants are not considered a citizen entitlement, community members and cash transfer recipients valued the conditions associated with these grants. The community members interpreted the fulfilment of the conditions as a proxy for achievement and merit, enabling them to participate rather than sit back as passive recipients of aid. Although conditions have a paternalistic undertone and engender the sceptics' view of conditions being pernicious and even abominable, it is important to recognize that community members, when given the opportunity to participate in programme design and implementation, can take advantage of conditions and appropriate them in a way that helps them manage change and overcome the social divisiveness or conflict that otherwise may arise when some people are identified to benefit and others not.
有证据表明，定期且可靠地向有孤儿和弱势儿童的家庭提供现金转移支付，对儿童的成长结果具有强大而积极的影响。然而，一些人认为有条件现金转移支付具有较强的干涉性，是否对现金转移支付附加条件这一问题存在争议。为推动关于条件适宜性的政策辩论，本文旨在调查不同利益相关者对条件的总体接受情况，并确定有助于条件被接受的途径。本文借鉴了津巴布韦东部马尼卡兰一个社区主导的现金转移支付项目的整群随机试验数据。向5167户家庭发放的终点调查评估了社区成员对条件的接受情况，对35人进行了深入访谈，并组织了3次焦点小组讨论，共有58名成年人和4名青年参与，探讨了当地对条件的看法。研究发现，人们对条件的接受程度很高且很普遍，主要原因是这些条件被视为公平的，并且是良好育儿或监护的一种体现。在一个不认为儿童补助金是公民应享权利的社会经济背景下，社区成员和现金转移支付接受者重视与这些补助金相关的条件。社区成员将条件的满足视为成就和功绩的体现，这使他们能够积极参与，而不是作为被动的援助接受者坐享其成。尽管条件带有家长式作风的意味，引发了怀疑者认为条件有害甚至可憎的观点，但重要的是要认识到，当社区成员有机会参与项目设计和实施时，他们可以利用这些条件，并以一种有助于他们应对变化、克服社会分裂或冲突的方式来接纳这些条件，否则当一些人被确定为受益者而另一些人不是时，可能会引发这些问题。
