Social protection, community participation and state‐citizen relations: Evidence from a cash transfer program in south‐central Somalia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate whether social protection programs can increase participation in community‐driven development programs and examine how this affects state‐citizen relations. Using a randomized controlled trial in south‐central Somalia, we study the impacts of one‐time unconditional cash transfers to vulnerable households that were specifically designed to encourage participation in community development. While the cash transfer is relatively small as a share of annual household expenditure, it is more than sufficient to cover households' anticipated community development contributions. The transfers were funded by an NGO but delivered through state institutions. We collect survey data before and after the intervention with almost 600 individuals eligible to receive cash transfers. We find no substantial differences in participation in community development projects for cash transfer recipient households relative to non‐recipient households. However, we do find positive impacts of the cash transfers on citizen perceptions of clan elders and the local government. Our findings suggest that relatively small social protection interventions may face challenges in increasing vulnerable households' participation in community development and decision‐making, while also highlighting potential positive spillover effects for state‐citizen relations and beliefs about the capacity of local institutions where states institutions are involved in program delivery, even if they do not finance the program.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".