Jacob Ulrich defends his PhD thesis

Jacob Ulrich will defend his PhD thesis: ¡±Should we just give most of the money to the poor? - A study of the potential reallocation of a major part of global aid to social cash transfers¡±.

The defense is held in English.

You can participate at 真人线上娱乐 University campus or online via Zoom: https://ruc-dk.zoom.us/j/64074088103?pwd=7XE3IEY4lpNvjAHbx2qffIM0QDfyLC.1 

Supervisors and assessment

Executive committee:

• Associate professor Paul Stacey, Department of Social Sciences and Business, 真人线上娱乐 University (chair)
• Professor Anne Mette Kj?r from Aarhus University
• Professor Jeremy Seekings from University of Cape Town

Supervisors:

• Professor Lars Buur, Department of Social Sciences and Business, 真人线上娱乐 University
• Director of DIIS Peter Kragelund

Leader of the defense:

• Bj?rn Thomassen, Professor (MSO), Department of Social Sciences and Business, 真人线上娱乐 University

Abstract

This PhD explores a thought experiment, namely to re-allocate most or all global development aid to social cash transfers (SCTs) to be given directly to the poor in the Global South in the form of child support or old-age pensions. 

Using the case of Uganda, the study uses micro-economic modelling to show that allocating a little more than two thirds of the aid currently available for Uganda to universal child support would reduce current income poverty by almost two thirds from 21.8% to 8.18%. That would be a game-changer for aid, which has long struggled to make a serious dent in poverty. In addition, the re-allocation of aid to SCTs could lead to a larger share of aid being spent in-country because international overheads related to SCTs are minimal. Furthermore, the study suggests that a shift of aid to SCTs may lead to improved accountability and social contracts between government and citizens as the former becomes increasingly dependent on taxation rather than donor funding for direct finance. 

The study explores the real-life potential for carrying out the thought experiment. lts analysis suggests that any implementation would face considerable political obstacles. Most importantly, the Ugandan government would fear that donor funding for (successful) SCTs could be weaponized by donors, who could threaten to cut-off funding should any conflict arise between themselves and the government. The latter would therefore want to see modified aid structures and/or guarantees to ensure the long-term availability of funding. Likewise, the government would be focused on whether spending aid on SCTs would buy it as much political legitimacy and patronage as alternative uses for funding.

Donors are likely to be equally reluctant to move into scaled SCTs because of the lack of an easy or immediate exit strategy, and because SCTs would not necessarily address the wider donor policy agenda, including immigration, climate, international security and business interests. 

The analysis explores the use of an Aid-to-Cash foundation at the national level as a tool to ease the implementation of scaled SCTs. This may have potential, but it was also met with scepticism from expert informants in Uganda and would need to demonstrate its feasibility in practice.

In terms of implementation, the study suggests that, if the primary objective of aid is poverty reduction, then it might be advisable to shift aid to SCTs. However, any shift towards scaled SCTs would come with important uncertainties and unknowns and should therefore be gradual and slow and potentially include the initial ring-fencing of current donor funds for the social sectors. A first step for Uganda could be a pilot program covering seven or eight districts, which should be carefully monitored for its wider impacts, including its political use and effects. 

Uganda was chosen as a critical case for the study in part because it seems to have a particular resistance to SCTs compared to its neighbours, suggesting that any scaling of SCTs that might work in Uganda would be likely to work elsewhere too. In particular, it is likely that the tindings for Uganda would be relevant for comparable countries in the region such as Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Kenya and Rwanda, which also have large aid inflows, persistent poverty and relatively stable political regimes.
 

Directions

Directions to 真人线上娱乐 University