A hand offers both cash and food, symbolizing the choices in aid delivery.

Cash vs. Food: Which Transfer Empowers Food Security?

Author's portrait.
Beau Callahan in Global Affairs June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Uncover the surprising results of cash and food transfers on food security, diet quality, and community resilience in Niger, offering fresh insights into effective aid strategies."


In the ongoing global effort to combat hunger and poverty, aid organizations and governments continuously seek the most effective ways to deliver assistance. For years, cash transfers have been touted as a superior alternative to traditional food transfers, primarily due to their perceived efficiency and cost-effectiveness. However, the real-world impact of these different approaches on food security and the lives of vulnerable populations remains a subject of intense debate.

A recent study conducted in Niger offers a compelling look at this issue. By employing a randomized design, researchers were able to directly compare the effects of providing cash versus food transfers on key outcomes such as food consumption, dietary diversity, and community resilience. The results challenge some long-held assumptions and provide valuable insights for policymakers and aid practitioners.

This article delves into the findings of this Niger-based study, exploring the nuances of each transfer method and their implications for empowering communities to achieve sustainable food security. We'll unpack the surprising results, examine the specific context of Niger, and discuss the broader lessons for global aid strategies.

The Niger Experiment: A Randomized Approach

A hand offers both cash and food, symbolizing the choices in aid delivery.

Niger, a country facing chronic food security challenges, provided the ideal setting for this research. In 2011, the World Food Programme (WFP) implemented a large-scale cash and food transfer program in the Zinder region, one of the country's most vulnerable areas. Recognizing the need for clear evidence, the program incorporated a randomized design: selected villages received cash transfers, while others received equivalent food baskets.

This randomized approach allowed researchers to isolate the specific impacts of each transfer method. They collected data on household food consumption, dietary diversity, coping strategies, and other relevant indicators both during and after the intervention period. By comparing the outcomes in cash and food recipient villages, they were able to draw conclusions about the relative effectiveness of each approach.

The key components of the interventions included:
  • Cash Transfers: Beneficiaries received cash payments equivalent to approximately $2 USD per day worked, up to a monthly maximum.
  • Food Baskets: Provided a nutritionally balanced assortment of grains, pulses, oil, and salt, designed to meet the average household's caloric needs.
  • Public Works: Both cash and food recipients participated in public works projects, contributing labor to community improvements.
  • Unconditional Transfers: A portion of recipients continued to receive transfers without work requirements during the agricultural season.
The study revealed a surprising advantage for food transfers in terms of immediate food security. Households receiving food baskets experienced greater improvements in food consumption and dietary diversity scores compared to those receiving cash. This suggests that, in the short term, direct food provision was more effective at ensuring adequate nutrition.

Beyond Immediate Relief: A Broader Perspective

While food transfers demonstrated a clear advantage in enhancing immediate food security, the study also highlighted the potential long-term benefits of cash transfers. Households receiving cash were more likely to invest in agricultural inputs, such as seeds and tools, suggesting a focus on building future productivity. This aligns with the idea that cash empowers individuals to make their own choices and prioritize their specific needs.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

What were the immediate impacts of cash versus food transfers on food security, according to the study in Niger?

In the Niger study, households that received food baskets demonstrated greater improvements in both food consumption and dietary diversity scores compared to households that received cash transfers. This indicates that direct food provision was more effective at ensuring adequate nutrition in the short term. This finding highlights the immediate impact of food transfers on food security.

2

How was the randomized study of cash and food transfers designed and implemented in Niger?

The research implemented a randomized design in the Zinder region of Niger in 2011. Some villages received cash transfers equivalent to approximately $2 USD per day worked, up to a monthly maximum. Other villages received food baskets containing a nutritionally balanced assortment of grains, pulses, oil, and salt, designed to meet the average household's caloric needs. A portion of recipients continued to receive unconditional transfers, without work requirements, during the agricultural season.

3

Besides immediate food security, what potential long-term benefits were observed with cash transfers, and how do they compare to food transfers?

Cash transfers, unlike food baskets, allow beneficiaries to invest in agricultural inputs such as seeds and tools. This indicates a focus on building future productivity and aligns with the idea that cash empowers individuals to make their own choices and prioritize their specific needs. However, food transfers were more effective at improving immediate food security.

4

In what specific context did the study on cash versus food transfers take place, and why was this location chosen?

The study took place in Niger, a country facing chronic food security challenges. Specifically, the research was conducted in the Zinder region, which is one of the country's most vulnerable areas. The World Food Programme (WFP) implemented a large-scale cash and food transfer program in this region, providing an ideal setting for comparing the effectiveness of cash versus food transfers.

5

What aspects of cash and food transfers were not fully explored in the Niger study, and what further research could be valuable?

While the study demonstrated the immediate benefits of food transfers on food security, it did not extensively explore the broader economic impacts of cash transfers beyond agricultural investments. Further research could investigate how cash transfers influence local markets, small business development, and financial inclusion within recipient communities. The study did not delve into potential negative impacts such as inflation or dependency on aid, which are important considerations for long-term sustainability of aid programs.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.