Table of ContentsCash Transfers in SummaryHow Cash Transfers Trump Previous Development ParadigmsHow Successful Are Cash Transfers?How Are Cash Transfers Successful?Key Debates Around Cash Transfer Programs social protectionMonetary transfers in shortMonetary transfers are integrated into development measures by being a branch of social protection. Social protection is a set of policies, programs and programs aimed at addressing a problem such as insecurity and risk. They are associated with people who cannot meet their needs through typical programs associated with the labor market; in other words, they are aimed at the most vulnerable people. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Money transfers work in such a way that the state regularly gives money to the poor, with or without conditions. Money transfer methods differ slightly from country to country. (Hanlon, 3). In addition to this, monetary transfers can be made either in the form of legitimate cash/vouchers or in the form of “in-kind” items. Both have advantages and disadvantages, which I will discuss later. There are both cash transfers and conditional cash transfers (CCT). Cash transfers work without conditions or contingencies and, conversely, CCTs involve conditions that the recipient must meet to receive money. An example of this would be: a poor mother receives a monthly sum of money on the condition that she takes her child to the doctor regularly. CCTs are targeted programs that mainly concern children's health and education. They also only give money to people who don't earn enough income to support themselves. How Cash Transfers Trump Previous Development Paradigms While previous development paradigms thrive in a number of aspects of development, they also fail in other areas that cash transfers seek to address. First, “development” tends to leave out the poorest of the poor and neglect the most vulnerable sectors. James Furguson says: “In such circumstances it has become increasingly difficult to argue that the value produced in the region's industrial centers is generated by the suffering of those on its periphery; instead, the suffering of the poor and marginalized appears functionally isolated from a system of production that simply has no further use for them” (Ferguson, 11). In an effort to help those individuals who tend to be “excluded” from previous development paradigms, conditional cash transfers “promote the inclusion of the ‘most vulnerable sectors’ of society” (Spronk, 21). Second, previous development paradigms are very focused on production as the best way to develop. To challenge this and bring morality back into the system, cash transfers have a strong distribution focus. For what? Because “development as production” can easily lead to producers being seen as manufacturers of goods rather than real individuals, while “development as distribution” does the opposite. Furthermore, James Ferguson believes that the world is now at a point where the distribution approach would make more sense. Its “distribution policy” “involvesnew ways of thinking about a range of things that include work, unemployment, family and the meaning of “social” payments (Ferguson, 10). Third, previous development paradigms do little to help individuals. face the harsh consequences of structural adjustment. Cash transfers, on the other hand, provide a long period of time during which money is regularly distributed to the poor. This helps them cope with the impacts of structural adjustment programs much more than previous development paradigms have done in the past. Not only that, but cash transfers also help individuals cope with other unforeseen circumstances. UKaid provides an example, stating: "In Lebanon, while UNHCR provided cash to Syrian refugees to cope with harsh winter conditions as an alternative to 'wintering kits', most directed their extra income towards food and water” (UKaid). UKaid then comments on this point by stating that "it's not that they didn't need fuel, it's that they needed other things more" (UKaid). This highlights the fact that “the element of choice is essential” (UKaid). Moreover, the expenses involved in previous development paradigms are astronomical compared to cash transfer programs. Susan Spronk and Melisa Handi in No Strings Attached state that “one of the reasons CCTs are so popular is that they provide results at a relatively low cost. Compared to the expenses involved in establishing universal, quality health and education systems – which in most countries of the South would involve massive public investments – CCTs are almost free” (Spronk, 22). It is logical that a health system based on the needs of the poor is cost-effective. To continue, previous development paradigms tend to make the poor part of the capitalist system in which Westerners get richer because the poor are poorer. poor. Structural adjustment programs are known to do just that. The poor are indebted to Western countries and are therefore placed in programs that, most of the time, lock them into the system. They remain poor and serve as slaves to the rich, creating goods that the rich benefit from and the poor do not. This is a vicious circle from which the poor, who are integrated into these structural adjustment programs, are unable to escape. On the other hand, cash transfers do not lock the poor into a system from which they are unable to escape. Monetary transfers aim to lift the poor out of poverty without wanting to enrich Westerners. Cash transfers also meet a more diverse set of needs that rigidly structured paradigms fail to recognize (UKaid). Because they are structured in such a way that the individual can use the money as they wish - based on what they believe to be the most conscious and tailored way to spend it - the individual gets their needs met. much more than if that person were to be pushed into an already structured system that is not built around their specific, personal needs but the general needs of the population as a whole. Cash transfers are more specific to each individual, meaning that plans are tailored to the needs of the individual rather than what the program assumes are their individual needs. Other health programs, organized in a more rigid manner, assume that the individual can easily integrate into a structure previously.