Top > JDR > Targeting Vulnerable People with a Social Safety Net: Lessons ...

single-dr.php

JDR Vol.11 No.5 pp. 926-934
(2016)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2016.p0926

Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 1,065

Targeting Vulnerable People with a Social Safety Net: Lessons from the CFW Program for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster

Shingo Nagamatsu

Faculty of Societal Safety Science, Kansai University
7-1 Hakubaicho, Takatsukishi, Osaka 569-1098, Japan

Received:
April 6, 2016
Accepted:
July 26, 2016
Online released:
October 3, 2016
Published:
October 1, 2016
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
social safety net (SNN), public works (PW), cash for work (CFW), self-targeting, livelihood recovery
Abstract
The Emergency Job Creation (EJC) program in which unemployed people are hired for recovery works funded by the government was introduced after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster in Japan. The program is very similar to Cash for Work (CFW) programs that are often implemented as social safety nets (SSNs). This paper evaluates how the EJC program targeted those most in need. From four projects, 938 participants were sampled and simple selection bias tests were conducted among job applicants in the region where the project was undertaken. Participants of the EJC program included more single females and irregular workers than the population group, thus demonstrating the EJC’s self-targeting function. Around 80% of participants were without dependent family members implying that there are two types of potential participants: those who prefer limited responsibilities with relatively low wages, and those who prefer a larger burden of responsibility with relatively higher wages. Because the wages provided by the EJC program may be high enough for the former, but too low for the latter, the program eventually excluded the second group. Similar programs in future should provide other types of jobs corresponding to people’s preferences. Previously unemployed participants were likely to be those who lost their houses; that damage had pushed them into the labor market. Because of the relatively minor existing SSN for housing damage, the EJC program served as an important safety net for disaster-affected people without a private safety net such as insurance.
Cite this article as:
S. Nagamatsu, “Targeting Vulnerable People with a Social Safety Net: Lessons from the CFW Program for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.11 No.5, pp. 926-934, 2016.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] The World Bank, Hazards of nature, risks to development: An IEG evaluation of World Bank assistance for natural disasters, The World Bank, 2006.
  2. [2] United Nations, Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030, 2015.
  3. [3] O. P. Attanasio and V. Lechene, “Efficient responses to targeted cash transfers,” J. of Political Economy, Vol.122, No.1, pp. 178-222, 2014.
  4. [4] World Bank, The state of social safety nets 2015, Washington, D.C., 2015.
  5. [5] M. A. Kamal and C. K. Saha, “Targeting social policy and poverty reduction: The case of social safety nets in Bangladesh,” Poverty & Public Policy, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 195-211, 2014.
  6. [6] L. Robertson, et al., “Involving communities in the targeting of cash transfer programs for vulnerable children: Opportunities and challenges,” World Development, Vol.54, No.100, pp. 325-337, 2014.
  7. [7] S. Zaidi, A. Kamal, and N. Baig-Ansari, “Targeting vulnerability after the 2005 earthquake: Pakistan’s Livelihood Support Cash Grants programme,” Disasters, Vol.34, No.2, pp. 380-401, 2010.
  8. [8] Mercy Corps, Guide to cash-for-work programming, 2010.
  9. [9] S. Lumsden and E. Naylor, Cash for work programming: A practical guide, Oxfam Great Britain, 2002.
  10. [10] P. Harvey, “Cash for work: A contribution to the international debate based on lessons learnt in northern Afghanistan,” Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), 2009.
  11. [11] Myanmar Red Cross Society, Rebuilding the lives and livelihoods of communities affected by Cyclone Nargis, Livelihood program report, 2010.
  12. [12] S. Doocy, M. Gabriel, S. Collins, C. Robinson and P. Stevenson, “Implementing cash for work programmes in post-tsunami Aceh: Experiences and lessons learned,” Disasters, Vol.30, No.3, pp. 277-296, 2006.
  13. [13] D. Échevin, F. Lamanna and A.-M. Oviedo, “Who benefits from cash and food-for-work programs in post-earthquake Haiti? MPRA Paper,” University Library of Munich, Germany, 35661, 2011.
  14. [14] C.Andrews, P. Backiny-Yetna, E. Garin, E. Weedon, Q. Wodon and G. Zampaglione, “Liberia’s cash for work temporary employment project: Responding to crisis in low income, fragile countries,” SP Discussion Paper, The World Bank. 72047, 2011.
  15. [15] Y. Admassie, “Lessons from the food-for-work Experience of the 1970s and 80s: The case of project Ethiopia 2488–Rehabilitation of forest, grazing and agricultural lands,” Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. of Ethiopian Studies, S. Ege, H. Aspen, B. Teferra and S. Bekele (Eds). Trondheim, Norway, pp. 809-821, 2009.
  16. [16] C. G. Mascie-Taylor, M. K. Marks, R. Goto and R. Islam, “Impact of a cash-for-work programme on food consumption and nutrition among women and children facing food insecurity in rural Bangladesh,” Bul World Health Organ, Vol.88, No.11, pp. 854-860, 2010.
  17. [17] P. Harvey, “Cash based responses in emergencies,” HPG Report, Overseas Development Institute, Vol.24, 2007.
  18. [18] P. Harvey and S. Bailey, “Cash transfer programming in emergencies,” humanitarian practice network, Overseas Development Institute, 2011.
  19. [19] D. Échevin, “Livelihoods and the allocation of emergency assistance after the Haiti earthquake,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, 5851, 2011.
  20. [20] F. Merttens, A. Hurrell, M. Marzi, R. Attah, M. Farhat, A. Kardan and I. MacAuslan, “Kenya hunger safety net programme monitoring and evaluation component impact evaluation final report: 2009 to 2012,” 2013.
  21. [21] S. Handa, C. Huang, N. Hypher, C. Teixeira, F. V. Soares and B. Davis,“Targeting effectiveness of social cash transfer programmes in three African countries,” J. of Development Effectiveness, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 78-108, 2012.
  22. [22] N. Andersson, S. Paredes-Solis, L. Sherr and A. Cockcroft, “Cash transfers and social vulnerability in Bosnia: A cross-sectional study of households and listed beneficiaries,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Vol.7, No.3: pp. 232-240, 2013.
  23. [23] J. Golan, T. Sicular and N. Umapathi, “Unconditional cash transfers in China: An analysis of the rural minimum living standard guarantee program,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, Vol.7374, 2015.
  24. [24] S. Nagamatsu, “Are cash for work (cfw) programs effective to promote disaster recovery? Evidence from the case of Fukushima Prefecture (Special Issue on ‘Urban Resilience’ for Mega Earthquake Disasters),” J. of Disaster Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 161-175, 2014.
  25. [25] R. Slater, S. Bailey and P. Harvey, “Can emergency cash transfers ‘piggyback’ on existing social protection programmes?” Background Note for the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers, 2015.

Creative Commons License  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Sep. 20, 2024