Targeting of Transfers in Developing Countries: Review of Lessons and Experience
By D. Coady, M. Grosh, John Hoddinott. 2004
653 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Law
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/18ba58f75ec7c5acb78ac7e48407fe2ac65dfe44
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Accounting
In Economics and Econometrics
- A. Barrientos
- R. Slater
- T. Mkandawire
- David Newhouse
- P. Segal
- A. Krishna
- Kangni Kpodar
- Branko Milanovic
In Law
Citations in the corpus
- Targeting and universalism in poverty reduction (2007, background): “In a World Bank study (Coady et al. 2004b) of 122 targeted anti-poverty interventions in 48 countries, the authors conclude that while the median programme transfers 25 per cent more to individuals than would be the case with universal allocation, a “staggering” 25 per cent of programmes are…”
- Resource Rents, Redistribution, and Halving Global Poverty: The Resource Dividend (2011, background): “26 Coady et al. (2004) describe such benefits as regressive, but they may in fact be progressive in the usual relative sense that the poor receive more relative to their incomes than the rich, even if in absolute terms they receive less”
- How Relevant Is Targeting to the Success of an Antipoverty Program? (2007, neutral): “(All cities except one, Kunming, have NS higher than the best performing program surveyed by Coady et al., 2004.)”
- Introduction: Cash Transfers: Panacea for Poverty Reduction or Money Down the Drain? (2006, background): “This includes evidence reviewed by Harvey (2005) in the relief context, and, in developmental contexts, the positive reviews of cash transfer experiences in, for example, Mexico (Barrientos and DeJong, 2004), Brazil (de Janvry et al., 2005), and Zambia (Schubert and Goldberg, 2004). Reviewing a rang”
- Reducing Child Poverty with Cash Transfers: A Sure Thing? (2006, background): “…suggest that as many as 40% of beneficiaries in Bangladesh’s Cash for Education programme are among the non-poor, whereas only 20% of beneficiary households in Nicaragua’s RPS and Mexico’s Progresa can be classified as non-poor, which is largely a result of better targeting (Coady et al., 2004).”