Ethiopia: Use of Impact Evaluation
281
responses vary across regions, Berhane et al. (2011a) report several commonalities. First, beneficiary preferences shifted away from cash between 2006 and 2008 during the food crisis. This trend reversed between 2008 and 2010, except in Tigray. The preference for cash is higher among public works participants than direct support beneficiaries; in all regions except the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region, less than 25 percent of direct support beneficiaries would prefer more than half their payments in cash. Tigray beneficiaries have a higher preference for food; Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region beneficiaries have a higher preference for cash. Econometric analysis (based on a panel data set for 2006 and 2008) conducted by Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux (2010) confirmed positive program effects on income growth and food security only when payments are made in food or mixed food plus cash, but not when payments are made in cash. Income gains of participants who received payments in cash have significantly been eroded by food price inflation, mainly because there is an inevitable lag in the adjustment of food wage to food price. Most woredas currently receive a mix of cash and food transfers. As a matter of policy, the program is still trying to move in the direction of wage payments in cash, ensuring the monetary wage is indexed to food prices.
Timeliness of Wage Payments Assessments carried out during the early phase of PSNP implementation found that the wage payment process was cumbersome with major sources of delay. According to Gilligan et al. (2009), timeliness of payments improved between 2006 and 2007 across all regions, but worsened in 2008. The most alarming cases of arrears were reported in some woredas in Amhara, Oromiya, and Tigray, where a substantial number of beneficiaries had received only one payment despite their reports of having worked each of the first five months of the year. Devereux et al. (2008) found that, despite some improvements, delays were still evident, mainly due to bureaucratic wrangling on measurements, approval, reporting processes, and so forth. Wage arrears and delayed payments compromise the program’s main aim, reduction in household food gaps; also, unpredictability of payments affects households’ ability to plan ahead in such areas as investing in new seeds or livestock. Evidence from 2010 data indicates that payment predictability remains a major concern. Predictability has improved, but beneficiaries