ArticleJournal of population economics2016
Unconditional Government Social Cash Transfer in Africa Does not Increase Fertility.
Article in Journal of population economics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conditional and Unconditional Cash Transfers to Improve Use of Contraception in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Studies in family planning · 2016Pooled it
- Do social protection programmes affect the burden of breast and cervical cancer? A systematic review.Health policy OPEN · 2024Review
- The mediating role of partner communication on contraceptive use among adolescent girls and young women participating in a small-group intervention in Malawi: A longitudinal analysis.Global public health · 2022Article
- Effects of preconception care and periconception interventions on maternal nutritional status and birth outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Review
- Do Social Protection Programs Foster Short-term and Long-term Migration Adaptation Strategies?Environment and development economics · 2020Article
- Myth-Busting? Confronting Six Common Perceptions about Unconditional Cash Transfers as a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Africa.The World Bank research observer · 2018Article
- Cash Transfers and Child Nutrition: Pathways and Impacts.Development policy review : the journal of the Overseas Development Institute · 2017Article
- COVID-19 emergency cash transfer and pregnancy in Brazil.Demographic researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Among policymakers, a common perception surrounding the effects of cash transfer programmes, particularly unconditional programmes targeted to households with children, is that they induce increased fertility. We evaluate the Zambian Child Grant Programme, a government unconditional cash transfer targeted to households with a child under the age of five and examine impacts on fertility and household composition. The evaluation was a cluster randomized control trial, with data collected over four years from 2010 to 2014. Our results indicate there are no programme impacts on overall fertility. Our results contribute to a small evidence base demonstrating that there are no unintended incentives related to fertility due to cash transfers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.