Liberia has spent years giving cash to its poorest citizens, handing money directly to families to spend on food, school fees or starting a small business. The program has worked. Now the country has tried something new: giving both partners in a marriage equal money, and asking them to plan together how to spend it.
The results were good — and bad.
Cash aid lifts families out of poverty
Since the early 2000s, countries across the developing world have used cash transfers to fight extreme poverty. The idea is simple: give people a lump sum, and let them choose what to buy. The studies keep backing it up.
In Liberia, the average household gets $250 a year. That money goes to one person in the home, usually a woman, to manage for the whole family. The country is among the 10 poorest in the world, and gender inequality runs deep. Women face harassment and discrimination, and they lack opportunities in the workplace. In many homes, the male head of household controls the funds and may not give his wife enough money to cover basic needs — soap, food, school fees.
Giving money directly to women is meant to break that pattern. One study author, Aurelius Butler, Liberia’s national coordinator for social protection, explains the logic: “We target the female in the house.” The hope is that economic control helps women support their families better.
The Liberian experiment
With funding from the World Bank and the nonprofit GiveDirectly, Liberia launched a new cash transfer experiment in 2022. More than 2,300 households in Maryland and Bomi counties received $750 in four installments — more than double the usual amount, because both partners got an equal share. The goal was two-fold: help families earn more income, and ease household tension in a country where nearly 35% of women report intimate partner violence, compared with a global average of 27%.
To push couples toward shared decision-making, researchers added a joint financial planning session for half of the families. The session lasted about 45 minutes, and couples were asked to detail their plan: fixing the house, buying food, investing in education, planting crops or building a business.
Posters and stickers for illiterate families
Since literacy rates in rural Liberia are low, the researchers created simple posters for each family. The poster had a picture of a happy family and empty boxes for the couple to list their four top spending priorities. Couples who could not write got a set of stickers instead. A stack of books stood for education, a stethoscope and syringe stood for healthcare.
The poster stayed with the couple, posted on their wall as a reminder of what they had promised. It was meant to keep both partners engaged in the plan.
Better off economically
Gupta followed the households for a year after the cash arrived. The results showed that planning worked. Households that received the planning session were even better off economically than households that got only the cash transfer.
One participant, Christian, who only gave her first name for the program, explained how she used her share. She works on a farm, and her husband gathers latex from trees for rubber making. They agreed on spending priorities: education, food and home repairs. Christian paid school fees for their five children, bought rice and paid off debt. Her husband bought solar light bulbs and cement to patch their leaky roof.
The shared planning appeared to stick. Both partners stayed focused on the priorities they had set together.
A surprise about violence
But the story took a darker turn when researchers looked at domestic violence. They interviewed couples before the cash arrived and again a year later, checking for any incidents. Most couples reported no problems. But the high-risk couples — those with a history of violence — saw a different pattern.
For couples deemed at high risk for violence based on previous incidents, the cash transfer brought an increase in income — but also an increase in intimate partner violence. The rise in violence was seen only among couples who had received the joint planning session.
Researchers were surprised by what they found. The study authors, including Gupta, now think the planning itself may have caused the trouble.
What went wrong with planning?
The hypothesis is that conflict may have occurred if one partner deviated from a plan they both openly committed to. Anytime one partner or the other deviates from that plan, the other person can call them out — and that could be a downside of planning, especially in houses already prone to conflict.
The planning may also have shifted the power dynamic from men to women. The study notes that this could happen directly, if planning gave women more agency over how funds were spent, or indirectly, if planning triggered economic changes that gave women more control.
Amber Peterman, an impact evaluation specialist at UNICEF who was not involved in the research, agrees that the shift in control matters. “It is quite clear that it’s something in the shift about couples deciding together [that led to the increase in violence],” Peterman says.
Why the results matter
The Liberian experiment shows that cash aid can lift families out of poverty, but it also shows that giving people control comes with risks. The planning sessions helped couples spend money wisely and build income — but the same process may have made high-risk marriages more violent.
The findings are a warning to policymakers. When you give money to couples and ask them to plan together, you are changing the balance of power in the home. That change can be positive for most families, but it can also expose existing tensions.
The lesson is not to stop planning. The lesson is to watch carefully. The couples who planned together were better off economically, but the high-risk couples saw worse outcomes.
Key figures from the study
- $250: Average annual cash transfer per household in Liberia
- $750: Amount given to each household in the new experiment, split equally between partners
- 2,300+ households: Participants in Maryland and Bomi counties
- 35%: Share of women in Liberia who report intimate partner violence
- 27%: Global average of women reporting intimate partner violence
Timeline of the Liberian experiment
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| Early 2000s | Cash transfers begin in Liberia |
| 2022 | New cash transfer experiment launched |
| July | Study results released |
The Liberian experiment is a reminder that poverty solutions are not neutral. Giving money helps families, but changing who holds power can have unexpected consequences. The Liberian government, the World Bank and GiveDirectly are all involved in the project, and they will likely continue following the households to see how the effects play out over time.
Source material: “Needy couples got cash and a spending plan. Results were good — and bad,” NPR.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.