While social protection programs have multiplied over the last two decades across sub-Saharan Africa, these co-exist alongside humanitarian assistance in many places, calling for better integration of assistance delivered through the two channels.

Contrary to expectations, a recent study shows that beneficiaries of Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program overwhelmingly prefer their payments to be at least partly in food.

Economists often default to the assumption that cash is always preferable to an in-kind transfer. Do beneficiaries feel the same way?

Economists typically default to the assumption that cash is always preferable to an in-kind transfer. We extend the classic Southworth (1945) framework to predict under what conditions this assumption holds.

In 2015, Ethiopia experienced one of its worst droughts in decades.

Centralized implementation mandates of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) require a full and uniform payment to each person in an eligible household.

Discussions regarding the merits of cash and food transfers by academics and implementers alike focus on their relative impacts. Much less is known about their relative costs.

In Ethiopia, as in many other African countries, there is a pressing need to improve household food security.

Access to sufficient food and nutrients is essential for household welfare, as well as for accomplishing other development objectives.

The primary goal of emergency food aid after an economic shock is often to bolster short-term food and nutrition security.