rose from 6 percent in LICs and 28 percent in UMICs during April-June 2020 to 19 percent and 52 percent respectively in 2021 (Table A6.21). While the number of beneficiaries increased over time, coverage likely fell short of the many households in need during the pandemic.

The difference in social assistance receipt tends to be relatively small across population groups (Table A6.21). Rural households were slightly more likely to benefit from assistance measures, though the difference with urban households remained small even later in the pandemic. Households where respondents had higher education were also less likely to receive assistance. Households with children were more likely to receive government assistance than households without any children, initially and also later in the pandemic as discussed in more detail in World Bank and UNICEF (2022).<sup>22</sup> The inadequacy of safety nets to protect households and the extent of unmitigated losses from the pandemic shock are also seen from the sizable share of households that faced food insecurity during the pandemic.<sup>23</sup> In the HFPS, food security is commonly measured using a binary variable that indicates whether adults in the household went a day without food in the last 30 days.<sup>24</sup> Initially, LICs had a significantly higher share of households that reported food insecurity, compared with countries in higher income groups (Table A6.22). The situation improved somewhat over the next year, but food insecurity remained elevated in LICs and LMICs in 2021. Nationwide school closures that led to the suspension of school feeding programs may have further exacerbated households’ lack of food access in some countries (Abay, Amare, et al. 2021). Bivariate regressions of food insecurity on a range of respondent characteristics show that within countries, respondents that were female and less educated

> transfers, but was less likely to include support received in the form of subsidies or tax/payment exemptions. The timing of the survey is also not ideal for capturing the timing of support. Nevertheless, these phone surveys are a rare source of cross-country information on the extent to which some form of fiscal support reached households at different times over the pandemic.

> 22The challenges with targeting are in part due to existing constraints of the social protection system in poorer countries, in particular high levels of informality and the lack of a social registry which could be used to quickly reach those in need. In fact, cash transfers, the main form of income support provided during the pandemic, were directed at informal workers in 79 percent of programs. In contrast, wage subsidies which mainly benefit formal workers were the most common labor market policy directed at individuals in HICs (Kamran et al. 2023). Many governments relied on inefficient subsidies instead of targeted transfers to respond to the crisis (World Bank 2022b).

> 23In some countries, there is evidence that well-established cash transfer programs helped mitigate the impact. In Ethiopia, Abay, Berhane, et al. (2023) show that worsening food insecurity was offset for households participating in the country’s flagship social safety net program. Aggarwal et al. (2022) presents similar findings in Liberia and Malawi in that receipt of cash transfers improved food security of rural households.

> 24This indicator is part of a set of self-reported questions that make up the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) and is associated with increased difficulties in accessing food due to resource constraints. The indicator was available for a total of 60 countries, including 4 HICs, 16 UMICs, 23 LMICs and 17 LICs.

26