Can cash transfers promote women’s flourishing? An assessment of Nigeria’s Household Uplifting Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are social assistance programs that are widely used to address the prevalence of poverty and vulnerability. By design, women play a central role in the implementation of these programs because women are selected as the primary recipients of the CCTs, entrusted with managing the cash for their households in line with the programs’ objectives, and expected to meet the conditions of the money, which are usually focused on improving development outcomes for their children. While the development impacts of CCTs have been extensively evaluated, women’s needs and experiences with the programs beyond their role as mothers, have been sidelined. The growing body of knowledge on the gender dimension of CCTs has debated the “empowerment” effect of the programs, but the evidence is divided, and women’s perceptions of wellbeing resulting from CCTs require more careful investigation and documentation. This study uses a feminist flourishing lens to examine women’s perceived wellbeing outcomes from participating in the Household Uplifting Program (HUP), Nigeria’s main CCT. The study employed key informant interviews, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions to understand if and how the program promotes or impedes women’s flourishing. The program’s unique hybrid structure also allows a comparison of flourishing outcomes among women receiving cash with and without conditionality, with implications for the conditionality debate in the cash transfer literature. Nigerian women’s voices are prioritized in capturing the processes, achievements, and contradictions in the operationalization of this CCT program, and its implications for their flourishing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".