positively to this question, it is a potentially important finding as recent work has linked stress to weaker cognitive ability, perpetuating levels of poverty (Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, Zhao 2013).

Whether productive assets indicate a form of livelihood diversification or additional income source is hard to determine as most impact evaluations do not directly show the link in these outcomes. However, for most of the poor livestock holdings, agricultural tools and other household assets are a store of value and a form of savings in themselves. Our meta‐analysis finds encouraging evidence to suggest that safety net transfers can successfully boost investment in these productive assets (see Figure 6). The mean effect on the livestock ownership is an increase of 34% relative to baseline levels [95% CI: 17 to 51%]<sup>55</sup> and the mean effect on ownership of durables is 10% relative to baseline levels [95% CI: 3 to 18%]<sup>56</sup> , both statistically significant. Evidence of increased fertilizer or seed use may also indicate a shift into higher risk, higher return agricultural practices, although our findings for this and land ownership are not statistically significant: 24% increase [95% CI: ‐3 to 51%]<sup>57</sup> for fertilizer or seed use and 8% increase [95% CI: ‐12 to 28%]<sup>58</sup> for land ownership.

The studies reporting on livestock ownership typically find investments in small livestock like chickens, ducks and goats. Cattle ownership tends to show smaller increases, if significant at all, and is often attributed to the large expense of buying cattle, the relative rarity of this activity among smallholders, or the perception by beneficiaries that investing in larger livestock may compromise their eligibility for the transfer (for example, in the Malawi SCTS program).<sup>59</sup> Durables include investments in agricultural tools as in Ethiopia’s SCTPP, Malawi’s SCTP and Zambia’s CGP,<sup>60</sup> while in other programs it is more specific to inputs for their household enterprise. There is also evidence of home improvement expenditures, such as purchasing metal or plastic sheeting for roofs and walls (e.g., Sierra Leone CFW, Kenya GIVE, IDRC, Lesotho CGP).<sup>61</sup> Only the Zambia CGP reports a significant positive impact on land operation, which finds that beneficiaries increase operated land by 18% (34 percentage points relative to baseline levels).<sup>62</sup> It may be that the size of transfers and length of participation in programs has not been sufficient to enable substantial investments in land ownership or at least at a level that would be detectable by an impact evaluation. To promote the use of fertilizer and seed use, additional complementary measures may be

> 55 Sources: Daidone et al, 2014 (Lesotho LCGP), Seidenfeld et al. 2013 (Zambia ZCGP), Merttens et al. (2013), Rosas and Sabarwal 2016 (Sierra Leone CFW), Asfaw et al., 2014 (Kenya CTOVC), Berhane et al., 2015 (Ethiopia SCTPP), Abdoulayi et al. 2015 (Malawi SCTP).

> 56 Sources: Abdoulayi et al. 2015 (Malawi SCTP), Pellerano et al. 2014 (Lesotho LCGP), Rosas and Sabarwal 2016 (Sierra Leone CFW), Beegle et al. 2015 (Malawi MASAF).

> 57 Sources: Hoddinott et al. 2012 (Ethiopia PSNP), Abdoulayi et al. 2015 (Malawi SCTP), Daidone et al, 2014 (Lesotho LCGP), Beegle et al. 2015 (Malawi MASAF), Handa and Park 2013 (Ghana LEAP).

> 58 Sources: Seidenfeld et al. 2013 (Zambia ZCGP), Ward et al. 2010 (Kenya CTOVC), Pellerano et al. 2014 (Lesotho LCGP), Merttens et al. 2013 (Kenya HSNP).

> 59 Abdoulayi et al. 2015 (Malawi SCTP).

> 60 Berhane et al., 2015 (Ethiopia SCTPP), Boone et al., 2013 (Malawi SCTP), Seidenfeld et al. 2013 (Zambia ZCGP).

> 61 Rosas and Sabarwal 2016 (Sierra Leone CFW), Haushofer and Shapiro 2016 (Kenya GIVE), Aker, 2013 (DRC IDRC), Pellerano et al. 2014 (Lesotho LCGP).

> 62 Seidenfeld et al. 2013 (Zambia ZCGP).

19