Financial inclusion and the contested infrastructures of cash transfer payments in South Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across much of the South, digital technologies are increasingly central to the expansion of state social protection systems. Supported by major development agencies, many of these distributive technologies are developed and implemented by financial technology companies with the specific aim of accelerating financial inclusion. While researchers have documented the influence of these financial actors and logics over social policy, we know less about how these interventions are transforming the experience of receiving social protection. Based on qualitative and observational research with social grant recipients in South Africa, this research demonstrates how digital and financial technologies produce confusion, informational opacities and new forms of exclusion among grant recipients. It suggests that the increasingly prominent role of financial technologies in the delivery of social protection undermines state capacity and further entrenches the influence of neoliberal logics over social policy. Finally, the article suggests that these technologies may be transforming the nature of social citizenship in South Africa, undermining efforts to advance universal and redistributive social protection policies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it