Social protection is moving up on the development agenda. Dismissed as ineffective, expensive or even detrimental to development in developing countries for a long time, it is now increasingly understood that assisting individuals, households and communities in dealing with diverse risks is needed for accelerated poverty reduction, and sustained economic and social development. Conceptually, social protection is shifting towards social risk management to reduce the economic vulnerability of households with appropriate instruments and to help them smooth consumption patterns. For the poor countries, it is about moving away from unproductive coping strategies adopted by households (such as removing children from schools, delaying health care, selling livestock) that are buffeted by shocks (such as drought, cyclones, floods, conflict, terms of trade, policy reforms, health, unemployment, etc.). It seeks to replace these strategies with ex-ante planning and mechanisms to

There has been a stark dichotomy between development approaches concerned with the productive sectors, usually focusing on enhancing the ‘supply side’, and those concerned with social protection, which have been widely regarded as a drain on public resources. This paper argues that the two are complementary and that social protection is less of a ‘drain ’ than previously thought. Transfers to the poor under social protection have generally been in kind, often taking the form of free or subsidised food. Nevertheless, recent experience in both development and rehabilitation contexts suggests a larger niche for cash transfers than many suppose, sometimes instead of ‘in-kind ’ transfers, at other times, in parallel with them. This paper reviews the evidence, drawing out implications for agriculture and natural resource development. Policy conclusions • Cash transfer programmes can deliver measurable welfare benefits and stimulate economic growth, both through investment in the ‘supply side ’ and through stronger, steadier demand for agricultural produce. • Preconditions for success in cash schemes include transparent targeting criteria, automatic and robust delivery mechanisms and transparency about people’s entitlements. Conditionality may also help. • With these conditions in place, cash schemes have the potential to be less corruptible than in-kind transfers, and will almost certainly cost less to administer. • Despite some danger of inflationary pressure, they are likely to stimulate local food markets, whereas food transfers may damage them.

www.ifpri.org IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

Development GoalsThis paper attempts to highlight the major contribution that social protection can and needs to make to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The cross-sectoral character and challenge of achieving the MDGs have been established in the international development discussion and is presented in the papers discussed at the Development Committee 1. The crucial contribution by Social Protection to reduce the vulnerability of poor and non-poor segments of the population and hence to pave the way for the achievements of all MDGs has found much less attention. This non-technical exposition aims at presenting these crucial links at conceptual and empirical levels in client countries, and ends with a key message: without due consideration to risks in the development process and the provision of appropriate social risk management mechanisms, including social protection, the MDGs will not be achieved. 1 What are the Millennium

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS

This paper surveys the recent academic empirical economic literature on the main current infrastructure policy issues in developing and transition economies--infrastructure is defined here as all the facilities used to deliver energy, water and sanitation, telecommunication and transport services. The survey tries to provide an unbiased coverage of the discussions on the linkages between infrastructure and, respectively, institutions, growth, equity, finance and corruption. The bulk of the analytical evidence draws on quantitative analytical assessments of the key lessons on these interactions from the 1990s and of the early part of the 2000s. In the process, the paper provides a rough blue print for a research agenda on infrastructure since one of the main overarching lessons is that the knowledge gap is not a small one. The main policy conclusions of the paper can be summarized as follows. First, the data gaps are so large that they impede an effective monitoring of the evolution of performance in terms of access, efficiency, equity or fiscal costs for most sub-sectors. As a consequence, there is less global accountability in this sector than in health or education. Governments should spend as much time benchmarking and assessing the performance of public operators as they do or would do for private operators to increase the accountability of the sector and minimize costs to the users and the taxpayers. Second, the debate on the

The IZA Policy Paper Series publishes work by IZA staff and network members with immediate relevance for policymakers. Any opinions and views on policy expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of IZA. The papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the corresponding author. IZA Policy Paper No. 6