290
Public Works as a Safety Net
PSNP Is Reaching the Poor Evaluations have shown that targeting has been relatively efficient in reaching the poorest households. Some eligibility conditions and requirements—notably identification of the food gap at the household level, and the requirement that every eligible household must provide five days of work for each member of the household—have proven to be difficult in practice. While the former condition of eligibility led to a larger number of eligible households than could be supported by available resources, the latter condition eventually led to a capping of total labor input to 20 days per five-member household, with a cash transfer given for the remaining 5 days. Thus, PSNP is rendered less a short-term employment creation program but more a food-security-enhancement program. PSNP has also proven to be more efficient in dealing with chronic food insecurity but less efficient in addressing transitory food insecurity. Realizing that food needs are dynamic, the program designed the risk-financing facility in 2008 to protect households against unforeseen shocks and to prevent transitory food-insecure households from becoming chronically food insecure.
The Modality of Payments Can Affect Program Impact Food price increases during 2006 and 2008 influenced program design and household welfare in different ways. Households soon began to prefer food to cash for payment, thus compromising one of the objectives of the program: to monetize and make cash payments. An attempt has been made to index wages to food price increases, although households still prefer food to cash during an inflationary period. Evaluations have indeed found that, in the context of unprecedented inflation, food transfers or a mix of cash and food are preferred to cash transfers since they enable higher levels of income growth, asset accumulation, and self-reported food security.
PSNP Is Having a Positive Impact on Food Security Evaluations have shed light on the impact the program is having on outcome indicators such as food, asset holdings, and income growth in chronically food-insecure households. Despite regional differences, the reported impact is positive for all three indicators: • Food security. Evaluations have shown that PSNP increases food security for beneficiary households. The impact is affected by the timing and level of transfers and whether households receive benefits from other food security programs (OFSP or HABP). Compared with