1GzuFGC

No guarantee of empowermentHowever, cash transfer programmes do not alwaysconfer benefits on women and their impact is notautomatically ‘empowering’. Benefit levels areoften too low to provide women with financialindependence or a greater say in householddecision-making. Evaluations of Ghana’sLivelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)programme, for example, found that, in spiteof transfers being directed to women, decisionmakingremained with husbands, brothers andsons. 50 In this case, the low level of benefitswas compounded by irregular and inconsistentpayments.There is also a tension between the economicsupport that such programmes provide, onthe one hand, and the risk of reinforcingexclusion, stigma or gender stereotypes, on theother, through the use of means testing andconditionalities. Means testing raises the dangerof excluding potentially eligible and vulnerablepeople. 51 The methods used are often complexand opaque, making it difficult for poor womento ‘scrutinize the targeting process, claim theirentitlements, and hold administrators of theprogrammes accountable for mistakes or errors’. 52Research on the Mexican Oportunidades/Prospera, programme, for example, foundwidespread resentment and lack of understandingamong non-beneficiaries over the beneficiaryselection process and their exclusion from theprogramme, leading to social tensions anddivisions within communities. 53Means-tested interventions are also morelikely than universal schemes to contribute tostigmatization because they single out specificdisadvantaged social groups. In the PlurinationalState of Bolivia, Ecuador and South Africa,for example, cash transfers have generatedstereotypes about beneficiaries being lazyor having more children in order to receivebenefits. 54 Fear of facing discriminatory attitudes,harassment and abuse may discourage womenfrom accessing transfers even when they areentitled to them. The risk of stigmatization isgreatest where gender inequalities intersectwith other axes of disadvantage such as class,ethnicity, disability, location or race. In Ecuador’sconditional cash transfer programme, Bonode Desarrollo Humano, for example, someindigenous women did not collect their benefitsbecause the private guards of the financialinstitution mistreated them while they werequeuing. 55Finally, means testing can enhance thediscretionary power of programme administratorsto withhold benefits or subject potential recipientsto humiliating additional ‘tests’. 56 Administratorsmay feel entitled to engage in the surveillance ofbeneficiaries’ behaviour or inspect their homes. 57Centralized data systems and electronic paymenttechnologies, introduced by some countries, canreduce the risk of administrative malpractice aswell as increasing the efficiency and transparencyof targeting methods. 58Conditionalities: Neither effective norempowering?The conditions that mothers are expected to fulfilin cash transfer programmes—such as attendingparenting workshops or taking children to healthchecks—reproduce gender stereotypes. Tyingthe receipt of transfers to mothers’ childrearingperformance reinforces the idea that children’swell-being is a female responsibility and doesnothing to encourage men’s involvement inparenting. Moreover, the requirements may addto women’s already heavy workloads and takeaway time from income-earning activities. 59Conditionalities can also exacerbate the riskof stigmatization and abuse by authorities.Requirements to take children to regular healthchecks or ensure school attendance are basedon paternalistic, and often racially biased,assumptions about the ability of poor people to