Escribe una PREreview

Cash transfers have emerged as a primary form of government-sponsored social security. The welfare effects of these programs differ by the design of the program, target population, socio-economic conditions, and follow-up duration. This study uses the PRISMA approach and assesses articles and papers published during the period 2015 to 2025 on households' consumption, food security, poverty, asset endowment, labour issues, human capital, resilience, and inequality across disciplines. The study also estimated pooled food security. In this study, papers published from January 1, 2015, to September 15, 2026, in indexed and non-indexed journals are considered. The reviews included 14 causal impact studies. Of these, only six studies provided 7 independent comparisons of standardised food security. The study pooled the effect measures, adjusted to the control group standard deviation, using an inverse-variance method with random effects. The results show that cash transfers increased food security and consumption, provided immediate economic security, and increased assets. The effects on labour and poverty were more varied. The pooled food security effect estimate was 0.265 SD (0.149-0.380), with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 81.3%; tau² = 0.019). The studies in Zambia, Malawi, Uganda, and some refugee establishments find that the transitory effects of cash transfer programs may be extinguished once the payments end. Overall, the cash transfer schemes improve the conditions of households' economies. Nevertheless, sufficient cash transfers distributed over significantly long periods, along with appropriate opportunities, services, and inclusive targeting, are needed to reduce chronic poverty.