# **1 Introduction**

The question of how to allocate limited resources is central to economic thinking. This issue is also currently driving a heated policy and academic debate on targeting, that is, the manner of selecting beneficiaries of social transfers. The debate has been fueled in recent years by the rapid proliferation of cash transfer programs, requiring decisions on how to select beneficiaries. But despite the increasing number of studies on the topic, questions remain on the best method for targeting households in development or humanitarian contexts. Cross-country comparisons of targeting methods employed in practice emphasize that there is a wide variation in targeting efficiency for each method (Coady et al., 2004; Devereux et al., 2017). Similarly, within-country comparisons of different targeting methods also show that targeting errors are important and that there are often numerous trade-offs across targeting objectives (Alatas et al., 2012; Schnitzer, 2019; Stoeffler et al., 2016). Moreover, the very idea of targeting beneficiaries, rather than implementing “universal” programs, is questioned by some scholars (Banerjee et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2018; Devereux, 2021; Kidd et al., 2017; Mkandawire, 2005).

Two important aspects have often hindered the ability to make informed decisions on targeting (or universal) choices. First, the concepts and methods used to discuss targeting performance are often misleading and can hinder a consensus on some aspects of the issue – or even a clear exposition of the specific trade-offs and sources of disagreement. Second, apart from individual project-case studies, empirical evidence on targeting outcomes is still scarce. Comparison across these studies is difficult, given the differences in assessment methodologies employed. The few studies that compare targeting performance across several programs are based either on simulated scenarios (such as in Brown et. al 2018) or on actual programs, but without fully harmonized features (such as in Coady et al., 2004 and Devereux et al., 2017).

Relying on harmonized household-level data from nine programs implemented in the Sahel region, this paper contributes to the academic and policy discussion on targeting by (i) providing comparable evidence on the performance of targeting methods implemented in practice; and (ii) showing the role of different measurement choices in targeting performance. We analyze targeting schemes in six countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Chad, and Northern Cameroon) that were implemented between 2014 and 2018.<sup>1</sup> Our study focuses on low-income countries where evidence is scarce and where targeting raises specific questions in contexts that are characterized by high poverty rates, low budgets relative to needs, and low administrative capacities. We analyze data sets that include information on proxy means testing

> 1 Each targeting scheme was evaluated under a different study, currently part of the gray literature (Table A1). A review of these reports and papers was conducted by the authors and is available upon request. Taken together, these studies represent a wide range of methodologies for measuring performance, making comparisons difficult.

2