{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017447199265381085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.411764705882353, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do many roads lead to Rome? Multiple causation in monetary transfers and how to approach it

Monetary transfers are an increasingly widespread policy to smooth consumption and alleviate poverty. Assessments, however, suggest a mixed record. Moreover, despite their often conclusive tone, such exercises leave many relevant factors unaccounted for. This is arguably due to the assumptions regarding causality made by the methods used. Consequently, those assumptions are challenged and it is argued that monetary transfers assume multiple causality. To do so, it is emphasized that monetary transfers establish minimum goals for beneficiaries to meet and that the latter are inherently heterogeneous. This heterogeneity is displayed by individual characteristics as well as by the features of the contexts in which they live. Hence, there is diversity regarding the pathways to the achievement of policy outcomes and an adequate approach to study it is required. Qualitative Comparative Analysis, a method particularly suited for the study of multiple conjunctural causation, is argued for.