Community Experiences with Cash Transfers in Relation to Five SDGs: Exploring Evidence from Ghana’s<i>Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty</i>(LEAP) Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social protection, which includes cash transfers, is a policy response addressing poverty and vulnerability. This paper examines the effects of cash transfers, in particular Ghana’s LEAP Programme, on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The paper examines the transformative potential of cash transfers by focusing on subjective, relational and psychosocial effects in addition to the reduction in poverty and vulnerability. The paper argues that giving the LEAP cash alone is not sufficient to address long-term poverty, but it is a necessary condition to serve as an instrument for social and economic transformation. Using a qualitative exploratory research design involving 20 in-depth interviews and seven focus group discussions, participants reported that LEAP cash had made them better off in both material and psychological dimensions of poverty, increased food security and nutrition and removed financial barriers to access health care. The cash capacitated women in decision-making, and strengthened peaceful co-existence both at family and community level. However, the LEAP may engender intra-community tensions emanating from sentiments of jealousy and perceived unfairness in the selection of beneficiaries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".