Introduction

Social protection programmes in developing countries are widely studied and their outcomes documented. Specifically, social cash transfer programmes provide cash transfers to poor households to protect them from deprivation and vulnerability, and to strengthen beneficiary household productive capacity (Barrientos 2011) and transformative potential to overcome unequal socio-political relations on society (Molyneux et al. 2016). Thus, social cash transfer programmes address precarious events (Barrientos 2011; de Haan 2011) and their impacts are noted in recent studies (Roelen et al. 2015; Samuels and Stavropoulou 2016; Carvalho and Rokicki 2019) yet the politics and pitfalls are rife in social protection programmes (de Haan 2014). Specifically, in the context of this study, studies have demonstrated the socio-political effects of social protection programmes and noted that cash transfer programmes have both positive and negative links with social cohesion (Babajanian 2012; Pavanello et al. 2016). Similar studies (Oduro 2015; Puorideme 2018, 2020; Abdulai et al. 2019) interrogated and shed light on the socio-political effects of cash transfer programmes beyond the taken-for-granted narrow view of poverty reduction and human development discourses. Also, scholars have raised interesting concerns as to

whether CTs can be catalysts leading to positive changes, material, subjective and relational in the lives of poor people; what are the social effects of CTs for beneficiaries, their households and communities; and can they foster horizontal relationships within communities and vertical relationship with the state (Molyneux et al., 2016: 1087).

The questions and concerns raised above merit further investigations. Furthermore, Roelen and Devereux (2014) have critiqued the one-dimensional quantitative evaluation methodology that is widely used in measuring social protection programmes’ outcomes in the sense that it limits the range of methods to the extent that they are only able to measure limited sets of quantitative programme outcomes. Consequently, they proposed a mixed method approach that would enable social protection programmes to capture and measure both quantitative and qualitative programme outcomes.

Thus, inspired by the questions of Molyneux et al. (2016), the arguments and proposal of Roelen and Devereux (2014) as well as a commitment to understanding and shedding light on the socio-political discourses and effects, and aspects of social protection programmes towards cohesive social relations, this study asks the following question. How do the actions, interactions, practices of cash transfer programme officials, caregivers, and non-beneficiary community members engender cohesive social relations in a specific socio-political context? By practices and actions (Foucault 1972; Nicolini 2012), I refer to the myriad of things programme officials, caregivers and non-beneficiary community members actually do and say about cash transfer programme targeting, enumeration, and enrolment practice in specific socio-political contexts. To answer the question above, this study focuses on analysing community focal persons’ and caregivers’ actions and accounts of actual actions of non-beneficiary community members from a focus group discussion in Ejisu Municipality (EJM) and Wa West District (WWD) in relation to the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) programme in Ghana. Thus, specifically, an understanding of the actions, interactions and practices of the programme officials, caregivers, and non-beneficiary community members is important to shed light on the socio-political effects of cash transfer programmes as noted in the works of Roelen and Devereux (2014), and Molyneux et al. (2016).

This study posits that a focus on actors’ actions and accounts of actual actions in local communities improve our understanding about actors’ agentic contribution to the socio-political effects of cash transfer programmes towards cohesive social relations. Furthermore, practices or social actors’ practices as used in this study is inspired by the works of Foucault (1972). The connections between actors’ practices, actions, and the specific socio-political context are inseparable, but relevant for exploring and understanding the links between social protection programmes and cohesive social relations. “The advantage of focusing upon practices is that they constitute a point of connection between abstract structures and their mechanisms, and concrete events—between ‘society’ and people living their lives” (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, p. 21). The analysis of socio-political aspects of the LEAP programme is in line with the fundamental commitment and aim of the National Social Protection Strategy of Ghana to go beyond income provision and poverty reduction to address inequality (Government of Ghana 2007). This study uses both ethnography and discourse analysis methods and the data are taken from ethnographic material that was collected in July and August 2017 by the author in Ghana for his PhD thesis.

An Overview of the LEAP Cash Transfer Programme in Ghana

In the year 2007, Ghana initiated a National Social Protection Strategy (NSPS) to create an all-inclusive “society through the provision of sustainable mechanisms for the protection of persons living in situations of extreme poverty, vulnerability and exclusion” (Government of Ghana 2007, p. 6). To achieve the goal mentioned above, the NSPS created and implemented the pilot phase of the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) programme in the year 2008 to provide vulnerable groups cash transfers to support their basic human needs. Thus, the programme’s main goal is to reduce poverty by increasing consumption and promoting access to services and opportunities amongst the extremely poor and vulnerable households (Government of Ghana 2020). Currently, the eligible social categories of the LEAP programme include persons aged sixty-five years (65) and above without any form of support, severely disabled persons without productive capacity, Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVC), extremely poor or vulnerable households with pregnant women, and mothers with infants.Footnote 1 Since its inception in the year 2008, the programme has provided cash grants to poor people in over 213,000 poor households in all the regions of Ghana. So far, the programme has made its seventieth cycle of cash payment to eligible poor households in Ghana.

The LEAP cash transfer programme has a separate secretariat located in the national capital Accra, but as a social protection programme it falls under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection. The programme is managed by staff employed by the Government of Ghana, with other technical staff called Technical Assistants (TAs) that are provided by transnational agencies or development partners. Also, the LEAP programme is financed by the Government of Ghana, but it receives financial and technical support from transnational agencies like the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank. At the sub-national level, the LEAP programme secretariat works with social welfare officers, employed by the Government of Ghana, to facilitate the implementation of the LEAP Programme. Fundamentally, the district social welfare offices host the LEAP programme at the district level, and the social welfare officers in turn work with community focal persons nominated by the community members at a community forum and subsequently approved by the LEAP programme secretariat (Puorideme 2018). Thus, the conceptual structure of the LEAP programme is presented below in Fig 1.

The model above shows a vertical relation (top-down red arrows) between the LEAP programme secretariat at the national level and caregivers/beneficiaries at the local community level with vertical feedback (bottom-up green arrows) from the local actors to the national secretariat. Also, the LEAP programme secretariat receives assistance in terms of finance and staff from both the Government of Ghana and the transnational agencies mentioned above.

In terms of targeting, the LEAP programme secretariat starts the process by selecting districts that are captured as extremely poor in the most recent Ghana Living Standard Survey (GLSS) report by the Ghana Statistical Services. In those extremely poor districts, the LEAP programme selects communities that have the highest incidence of poverty according to the GLSS report, and then the programme contracts a third-party agency to survey and enumerate extremely poor households using a proxy means test (PMT) instrument. The PMT is a questionnaire that

consists of three sections: the location and identity of the heads of household are recorded in the first section; the biodata and demographic characteristics of members of the household can be found in the second; and the housing characteristics and asset ownership information is recorded in [the] third section (Puorideme, 2018: 102).

The eligibility of a household to be included in the programme is dependent on the outcome of data analysed by the LEAP programme secretariat. A household is eligible for enrolling onto the programme only after a successful targeting and enumeration is done as mentioned above. This means that “officials of the LEAP cash transfer programme secretariat visit the communities in which the enumeration of households was performed, in order to verify and confirm the eligibility of the potential beneficiaries to be enrolled” (Puorideme 2018, p. 103). If the verification exercise is successful, then the biometrics of the caregiver or beneficiary are taken and electronically registered with the National Switch and Biometric Smart Card Payment System, an e-Zwich platform of the Ghana Interbank Payment and Settlement Systems Limited (GhIPSS), which is the third-party agency (Puorideme 2018).

Furthermore, the LEAP programme secretariat proceeds with the processes of payment after a successful targeting, enumeration, verification, and enrolment of eligible households. After caregivers’ or beneficiaries’ biometrics are captured and registered, the LEAP programme secretariat starts a bimonthly accrual of the cash grants or benefits of the eligible caregivers or beneficiaries for payment. Thus, caregivers or beneficiaries are to be paid every two months, so there are six payment cycles in a year. The LEAP programme through the GhIPSS makes online or offline cash transfers or payment to caregivers or beneficiaries after a successful accrual of benefits. Also, before payments are made, the LEAP programme officials visit communities to inspect and approve the sites or points selected for the paying of cash and ensure that they are appropriate and secured places. “Pay points are selected places in the communities that are deemed fit for the payment of cash to beneficiaries and caregivers; that is, it is a kind of remote but safe place for ‘banking transactions’ in the community” (Puorideme 2018, p. 104). Thus, in some instances caregivers or beneficiaries must travel to secured and appropriate pay points or sites in communities other than their own to receive their cash grants.

State of the Art: A Review of Relevant Studies

This section presents a review of relevant existing studies in social protection programmes, focussing on the socio-political outcomes of cash transfer programmes in relation to social cohesion in Global South countries. Social protection refers to “public actions taken in response to levels of vulnerability, risk and deprivation which are deemed socially unacceptable within a given polity or society” (Norton et al. 2002, p. 543). Social protection gained momentum on the international development agenda in late 1990s, particularly in developing countries (Barrientos and Hulme 2009). Its policies and programmes focus on reducing poverty and deprivation (Barrientos 2011). However, recent studies have investigated and documented social protection programmes’ outcomes especially the socio-political outcomes of cash transfer programmes at the micro, meso, and macro levels of society beyond quantitative measures of income poverty reduction outcomes (Roelen and Devereux 2014; Molyneux et al. 2016; Puorideme 2021). In addition, similar studies have documented cash transfer programmes’ socio-political outcomes in relation to cohesive social relations (Babajanian 2012; Oduro 2015; Pavanello et al. 2016; Abdulai et al. 2019; Puorideme 2020). According to Chan et al. (2006, p. 290),

Social cohesion is a state of affairs concerning both the vertical and the horizontal interactions amongst members of society as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, a sense of belonging and the willingness to participate and help, as well as their behavioural manifestations.

Also, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011, p. 17) defines a cohesive society as one that ‘works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalisation, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility’. Recently, a group of scholars at the German Development Institute in Bonn defined social cohesion as 

the vertical and the horizontal relations amongst members of society and the state, which hold society together. Social cohesion is characterized by a set of attitudes and manifestations that includes trust, an inclusive identity, and cooperation for the common good. It is the glue that holds society together. (Leininger et al., 2020, para. 1)

Tailored to the definition above, this study focuses on exploring the manifestations of trust and corporation for common good as characterised by social cohesion. Cooperation for the common good exists when people or groups of people cooperate for “interests that transcend those of the individuals involved” and trust is the “ability to trust people outside one's familiar or kinship circles” (Leininger et al. 2020, paras. 3–4). While the above scholars and institutions provide various descriptions of the problematic concept of social cohesion, the connection of the concept to public social protection remains uncertain, perhaps due to the varied discursive construction and production of meanings and relations between the two concepts. Thus, there is paucity of studies about the socio-political outcomes of cash transfer programmes in relations to social cohesion at the micro, meso, and macro levels (Molyneux et al. 2016). Also, documented evidence of social cohesion—“the glue that holds society together”—in social protection is nascent but limited.

In the context of this study, the review focuses on the following nine studies: Roelen and Devereux (2014), Molyneux et al. (2016), Pavanello et al. (2016), Hickey and King (2016), Jones et al. (2016) Adato et al. (2016) Puorideme (2020), Abdulai et al. (2019), and Oduro (2015). These studies are relevant to this study owing to the use of innovative qualitative methods and the discussions of socio-political outcomes of cash transfer programmes in relation to social cohesion and social interactions at the micro, meso, and macro levels of society. Also, three of the studies mentioned above (Oduro 2015; Abdulai et al. 2019; Puorideme 2020) investigated the socio-political outcomes of the LEAP cash transfer programme in Ghana, which is the focus of this study. Consequently, the literature is organised into two categories that focus on methodology and findings, thereby discussing methodological implications, and the socio-political outcomes and social cohesion of cash transfer programmes.

Methodologies for Investigating CT Programmes’ Socio-political Outcomes

Recent studies suggest that persistent calls for social transformation and concrete socio-political outcomes of CT programmes necessitated the incorporation of qualitative research methodologies and methods “to assess the social impacts of CTs and to increase their effectiveness by making them more closely attuned to local conditions” (Molyneux et al. 2016, p. 1088). Thus, qualitative assessments of CT programmes problematises the long standing taken-for-granted quantitative income poverty measures of cash transfer and other antipoverty programmes thereby creating space for alternative methodologies and methods (Roelen and Devereux 2014). Furthermore, Roelen and Devereux (2014) argued that the integration of multiple methods creates space for broadening the assessment of impacts in a holistic manner and brings to the fore both concrete qualitative socio-political outcomes and quantitative income poverty impacts of CT programmes in specific settings. Consequently, the two scholars proposed a mixed method approach and used same to assess a Social Cash Transfer Pilot Programme (SCTPP), in Tigray, Ethiopia, and asserted:

the use of mixed methods in evaluating social protection programmes is undoubtedly preferred to the application of a single tool or method …integration of methods and verification of findings proved to be particularly useful for the analysis of programme processes and social dynamics (Roelen and Devereux, 2014: 8).

However, they pointed out problems in relation to the use of a mixed method approach in CT programmes’ evaluations especially the sequential way in which the different methodological tools and methods are designed, the investigation of predetermined hypotheses, and the ways the design of the tools or methods are tied to limited programme timelines. This study contributes to addressing some of the above problems the two scholars pointed out.

Also, on a modest note, other scholars have used mixed qualitative methods including interviews, observations and focus group discussions (Adato et al. 2016; Jones et al. 2016; Pavanello et al. 2016), and a blend of ethnographic and discourse methods (Puorideme 2020, 2021) to investigate the socio-political outcomes of CT programmes in relation to cohesive social relations in different settings. Like Roelen and Devereux (2014), the studies mentioned above have found socio-political effects of cash transfer programmes’ outcomes regarding social cohesion in different contexts. The findings of the studies above are presented in the following section to contextualise this study.

CT Programmes’ Socio-political Outcomes Towards Cohesive Social Relations

In their study, Molyneux et al. (2016) have noted that the quest for transformative social protection meant that transnational agencies like the World Bank are discontented with the long standing taken-for-granted quantitative outcomes of social protection programmes. These agencies have supported innovative designs and measurements to assess the impacts of CT programmes beyond poverty reduction. Transformative social protection programmes, according to Molyneux et al. (2016), are “those which introduce changes that are expected to result in positive effects because they tackle some of the factors that prevent change” as well as help poor beneficiaries and households “overcome disabling/oppressive social relations” (Molyneux et al. 2016, p. 1088). Also, unlike in the past when antipoverty programmes and cash transfer programmes appeared to manage and to some extent depoliticize poverty in the developing world, recently, CT programmes have a transformative focus, which include “tackling oppressive social relations and forms of exclusion; mechanisms designed to promote voice, rights and justice values are being embedded in programming” (Molyneux et al. 2016, p. 1089). For Molyneux et al. (2016), CT programmes generate transformative effects and socio-political outcomes at several levels and domains of interaction including beneficiaries’ and households’ relations (micro-level), households/beneficiaries-communities’ relations (meso-level), and citizens-states relations (macro level).

In discussing cash transfer programmes’ transformative effects in relation to community interactions in five countries (West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Kenya, Uganda, and Mozambique) in sub-Saharan Africa, Pavanello et al. (2016) found both positive and negatives effects of social cash transfer. In terms of the positive effects, they found that social cash transfers strengthened social bonding thereby breaking patterns of social exclusion, but in terms of the negative effects, social cash transfer instigated intracommunity tensions in relation to targeting practices. However, they pointed out that these effects were not uniform across the five countries, rather the effects varied in relation to the social contexts and the choice of programme mechanisms. For, instance, they asserted that whilst in the West Bank and Gaza there were intracommunity tensions due to inadequate information dissemination and sensitization processes, in Uganda and Mozambique, tensions were minimal due to the use of the categorical-based targeting approach coupled with the sense of community solidarity. A similar study of social cash transfer programme targeting practices in Ghana found that the caregivers of eligible households contested the use of the proxy means test (PMT) targeting mechanism to re-categorise “family members into households ‘outside’ of everyday sociocultural relations and practices” (Puorideme 2020, p. 28) in the sense that the practice created and isolated new households outside of larger family units thereby creating intracommunity isolation and exclusion.

At the macro level, many studies continue to point to the importance of embedded politics, power and the broader socio-political contexts shaping transformative social cash transfer programmes’ outcomes beyond poverty (Adato et al. 2016; Hickey and King 2016; Jones et al. 2016). In their study of a social cash transfer programme in El Salvador, Adato et al. (2016) found socio-political outcomes such as the promotion of citizenship, and they found also that compact state-citizen relations are shaped by established local representative structures. Similarly, Hickey and King (2016) assert that balancing bottom-up approaches with enhanced state authority or institutional apparatuses in the delivery of cash transfer programmes leads to a transformative society-state relations and broader socio-political outcomes. For Jones et al. (2016), the politics of social cash transfer programmes’ implementation cannot be ignored owing to the important role of politics and power in transforming state-citizen engagement. Thus, they stress that the implementation of social cash transfer programmes should consider an adequate understanding of the socio-political contexts of the specific settings in which these programmes are implemented.

Furthermore an investigation into the socio-political outcomes of the LEAP programme in Ghana revealed weak citizen-state relationship (Oduro 2015; Abdulai et al. 2019). For Abdulai et al. (2019), there is a disconnect in the common understanding of the purpose of the programme between policy makers and households at the micro, meso, and macro levels thereby weakening state-citizen relations. Similarly, Oduro (2015) pointed out that whilst the LEAP programme has the potential of strengthening citizen-state relations, weak institutional structures coupled with delays in resolving grievances influenced negative social relations in communities thereby inhibiting beneficiary agency as well as undermining social relations.

In brief, the studies above point to the fact that the socio-political outcomes of social cash transfer programmes in developing countries provide a better understanding of CT programmes’ impact beyond the narrow focus and often taken-for-granted income poverty measures that have dominated cash transfer programmes’ assessments for a long time. However, as studies in this direction are still emerging and growing, the studies mentioned above have not been able to demonstrate adequately and concretely how social cash transfer programmes’ socio-political outcomes are realised or accomplished in actual social interactions and everyday practices in specific settings apart from providing quotes in interviews. Thus, actual actions, practices, and interactions between key social actors such as programme officials, caregivers and beneficiaries were barely shown, presented, and analysed. As there is a dialectical relationship between key actors’ actual discursive practices and the broader socio-political context (Fairclough 2010; Foucault 1972), an analysis of actions, account of actual interactions and practices taken into account in relation to the broader socio-political context sheds light on the socio-political outcomes of social cash transfer programmes and to a moderate extent, social cohesion. Thus, this study contributes to understanding the aforementioned aspects of social cash transfer programmes in Global South countries.

Discourse Theory

It is always a difficult task to provide an explicit and universal definition of the concept of discourse since there are different notions and definitions of discourse from many scholars (Fairclough 1992; Foucault 1972; Gee 2014; Van Leeuwen 2008). For Gee (2014, p. 47), discourse is a ‘characteristic way of saying, doing, and being’, a way of combining language, actions and interactions and a way of using objects to construct reality. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse, Van Leeuwen (2008) describes discourse as the construction of reality in specific social contexts, and that discourse is realised in language and semiotic modes. In fact, according to Foucault (1972, p. 49), discourses are ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’, he argued that it is not enough to treat discourses only as ‘groups of signs (signifying elements referring to contents or representations)’ in the sense that discourse is more than the taken-for-granted use of language for signification and representation.

Fairclough (1992) on the other hand has criticised Foucault’s notion of discourse for placing much emphasis on abstract rules and the constitutive nature of discourse and the neglect of real practices and the actions of social actors for social change and transformations. For Fairclough (1992, pp. 62–63), discourse is ‘a form of social practice’, ‘a mode of action, one form in which people may act upon the world and especially upon each other, as well as mode of representation’. In this way, Fairclough (1992, p. 57) emphasises that practices ‘mean real instances of people doing or saying or writing things’. Also, Shi-xu (2005, p. 19) argued for a cultural perspective of discourse and defined discourse as the ‘construction of meaning through the use of (primarily) linguistic symbols in a concrete cultural context’. In brief, amongst the scholars outlined above, there is some consensus that discourse is understood as the ways in which human actions and practices are shaped and being shape by the everyday interactions in cultural contexts and structures of social organisations.

Methodology

This study combines ethnography and discourse analysis. Thus, the methodological details are explicated in the sections below.

Study Sites: Ejisu Juabeng Municipality (EJM) and Wa West District (WWD)

The data for this study come from two main sites/villages: the Ejisu-Juabeng Municipality (EJM) of Ashanti region and the Wa West District (WWD) of Upper West region. The selection of the two locations was informed by two key issues including, first, the length of time they have been enrolled in the programme, and second, the political situation at the period of enrolling households in these two specific locations onto the LEAP programme. Each of the issues within the settings are discussed below in relation to the selection of the two sites.

In the year 2016, nine hundred and eleven (911) households in the Ejisu-Juaben Municipality were enrolled into the LEAP cash transfer programme, and received two cycles of cash payment due in October and December in the same year (Ejisu Juaben Municipal Assembly 2016). Interestingly, in the year 2016, Ghana was due to conduct national elections to select a president and members of parliament across the country. Thus, the duration of EJM’s households’ involvement in the LEAP cash transfer programme must have been limited with only two cycles of cash payment. However, the political situation in Ghana at the time is in fact relevant in shedding light on the study question in relations to the targeting and enrolment aspect of the programme. Thus, the embedded power relations and politics between actors in the setting at the time cannot be downplayed as mainstream politicians appear to use the programme as a tool for increasing votes in those communities.

Furthermore, in the year 2008, households in WWD were amongst three thousand, one hundred and fifty (3150) poor households in three districts (Wa East, Wa West, and Sissala West) in the Upper West Region that were enrolled in the first phase of the LEAP cash transfer programme (Ghana News Agency 2008). Like their counterparts in EJM, poor households in WWD were enrolled in an election year and the implications of the power relations and politics at the timeFootnote 2 did not go unnoticed as politicians relied on such programmes for more votes in local communities. Also, in the same way, this aspect is interesting in informing the outcome of this study in relation to social cohesion. Unlike their counterparts, it is important that WWD’s households’ involvement in the LEAP programme for such extended period could shed light on actors’ practices about targeting, enrolment, and payments aspects of the LEAP programme relevant to cohesive social relations. Consequently, reflecting and taking care of the limited duration of EJM on the programme to strengthen the findings of this study, the findings from EJM are discussed in relation to those from WWD in the discussion of findings section.

The Nature of Social Cohesion in the Two Study Sites Before the LEAP Programme

As a postcolonial society, bureaucratic relations, and traditional sociocultural relations coexist in Ghana’s society (Puorideme 2018). By bureaucratic relations this study refers to relations between individuals, groups and the bureaucratic institutions of the state that are contingent on modern legal instruments and practices. Also, by sociocultural relations this study refers to relations between individuals and groups that are contingent on mundane cultural kinship structures and practices. Thus, even though the attributes of social cohesion mentioned above may be ubiquitous in both categories of relations mentioned above, it is important to distinguish and contextualise the nature of social cohesion in the bureaucratic and sociocultural domains in EJM and WWD before the implementation of the LEAP cash transfer programme by the Government of Ghana.

Consequently, it is important to point out the spatial and linguistic differences of the two districts, but in their sociocultural domains, relations are contingent on cultural and kinship practices, which bind the members together (Puorideme 2019). While in both districts community members cooperate and support one another during the performances of social rituals such as funerals, naming ceremonies (Boni 2010; Puorideme 2018), they draw on the authority of chiefs and elders as well as family and kinship ties and practices in resolving disputes amongst members (Nave 2016; Puorideme 2018). On the attribute of trust, a programme officer asserted in an interview that the people the community members select as the community focal persons are the people they all know and respect and for that matter the community members “take their words seriously” (LEAP programme officer, July 2017). Also, they are “those persons in the community who have won the trust of the leaders and members of the community by the way that they conduct themselves” (Puorideme 2018, p. 114). Generally, in the domain of sociocultural relations in Ghana, family members act and relate to one another in terms of “we” rather than "I” (Kuada and Chachah 1989) when it comes to cooperating for their common good in local local communities (Puorideme 2020). However, relations contingent on bureaucratic apparatuses and practices are strained perhaps due to the pervasive polarization and influences of party politics in local communities. As a district focal person put it during interaction with a community focal person, which was observed and recorded as a naturally occurring interaction in EJM, “the village politics is so dirty” (Interaction between a District Focal Person and a Community Focal Person in EJM, August 2017). Consequently, trust and cooperation for common good in the domain of bureaucratic relations, especially, between community members and public officials are strained (Puorideme 2020).

As outlined above, it is important to understand that social cohesion amongst community members existed in the communities of EJM and WWD before the implementation of the LEAP cash programme in those communities. However, social cohesion between public officials and communities were strained in those communities before the LEAP programme entered those communities. In a focus group discussion with community focal persons in EJM, one of them asserted that “because in the past some organisations including NGOs have come here to deceive the community members, when they came and talked about LEAP the young men in the community said nobody should mind them because it is not real” (Community Focal Person in EJM, July 2017). Similarly, during a focus group discussion with community focal persons they pointed out that one of the key challenges they faced during targeting and enumeration of households was that some community members were unwilling to participate in the process because they felt it was a political party programme.

Thus, if one does not belong to the ruling political party, it would be difficult to access it. Even though it is not possible to absolutely attribute the presence or absence of social cohesion in EJM and WWD, whilst the implementation of the LEAP programme appears to shape and strengthen social cohesion amongst community members at the horizontal level, the same cannot be said about social cohesion between community members and public officials at the vertical level.

Data Collection, Methods, and Tools

Data are collected from focus group discussions in relation to targeting, enumeration, and enrolment activities of the programme, and these activities are selected based on the intensity of actions and interactions between the social actors involved. Four focus group discussions, two in each of the two locations (EJM and WWD), with community focal persons and caregivers were conducted. Focal persons are liaisons between programme officials and caregivers in the local communities; thus, they are visibly involved in all programme processes (ranging from targeting to payment) in the local communities. All community focal persons that participated in the group discussions were conveniently selected based on their willingness and availability. In EJM eight community focal persons were selected to constitute the focus group, and in WWD seven community focal persons constituted the focus group.

Also, the caregivers of poor households are liaisons between the LEAP cash transfer programme and the poor households with eligible individuals who qualify the households for the programme (Puorideme 2018). The LEAP programme secretariat insists that everyone in the poor household in which the eligible individual is found must benefit from the cash paid out to the caregiver of the household. The cash is used for the benefit of the household but not to the direct benefit of the vulnerable individual qualifying the household to be part of the programme. Thus, this study finds it prudent to select and interview caregivers but not individual direct beneficiaries (i.e., those qualifying the household to be part of the grant) because the caregivers are more involved in the programme activities than the vulnerable individuals qualifying the poor households. The selection of the caregivers was based on convenience, those that were willing and available to participate in the focus group discussions. Thus, in EJM eight caregivers were selected and in WWD six were selected to participate in the focus group discussions.

Systematically, the focus group discussions started with the community focal persons and finished with caregivers. The selection of the communities for the observation and data collection was based on pragmatic reasons. For instance, poor households and caregivers in EJM were enrolled in the year 2016, and the study commenced in the year 2017, thus it is expected that issues of targeting in EJM will be relevant to both caregivers and non-beneficiary community members. In addition, programme officials, and the caregivers of poor households in WWD have participated in many payment cycles since 2008 and have accumulated knowledge about the LEAP programme practices and activities relevant to this study. Furthermore, for the purposes of triangulation, key informant interviews were conducted with a programme official at the national programme secretariat in Accra, a District Focal Person at EJM, and another District Focal Person at WWD. Also, two relevant programme evaluation reports from a team of independent programme evaluators (Angeles et al. 2017; Handa et al. 2014) were accessed. However, those two documents did not report much about social cohesion or its attributes in terms of trust and cooperation for common good as reported impacts were skewed towards the quantification of impacts. Thus, data from the focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and relevant programme documents are analysed in conversation with data from focus groups discussions and interactions in the immediate context of their occurrences or production and broader socio-political discourse and practices in Ghana’s society (Fairclough 2010; Reisigl and Wodak 2016).

The main methods of gathering the data included videography (Schubert 2006; Heath et al. 2010; Knoblauch et al. 2014), audio-visual recordings of focus group discussions with community focal persons and caregivers, audio recording, and relevant note taking from programme documents. While researchers in the social sciences assume that the reactions of research participants to cameras and recording processes negatively affect research findings,Footnote 3 this study orients to the practical and relevant suggestions of notable video-based research scholars (Heath et al. 2010) to avert or address such problems during recording and in preparing the video data for analysis.

Rather than assuming an a priori, all-pervasive influence of the recording process of the participants, it is worthwhile addressing the problem empirically. For any data you collect, examine the materials to find evidence of the participants orientating to the filming and if instances are found then consider how they arise and why. In other words, we need to demonstrate an orientation by the participants themselves in the production of their actions to some aspect of the recording equipment. (Heath et al., 2010, p. 48)

Certainly, there is the need to reflect on the impact of the recording devices on the actions and conduct of the participants as the actual influences vary in relation to several factors (Heath et al. 2010). Thus, in this study, the researcher viewed the video data several times before and during transcription but did not find evidence of participants orientating to the camera that would influence their actions or conduct in terms of what is “said” or “unsaid” (Foucault 1972, p. 110), and subsequently, the data and the findings. While the camera was mounted on a tripod four metres away from the participants during focus groups discussions, it was held at a similar distance by the researcher when recording naturally occurring interactions as they arise (Heath et al. 2010) between participants in local communities. The data for this study is part of ethnographic material that was collected from July to August 2017 by the author for his PhD thesis. The spatial representation of the two regions and districts is presented in the map of Ghana below in Fig 2.

Transcription Techniques and Discourse Analytic Framework

In the context of this study, the transcription of actual talk or utterances, actions and interactions of community focal persons and caregivers was steered towards conversation and multimodal interaction analytic principles (Norris 2004; Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008; Jewitt et al. 2016). In EJM, participants spoke in Asante Twi, and in WWD only the caregivers spoke in Dagaare. These are the local languages of the study communities. Consequently, this study adopts a two-line transcription approach in transcribing conversation or talk in the local languages. However, participants’ embodied actions were transcribed using conversation and multimodal interaction transcription principles and notations. In this way, ‘the original utterances of participants are placed in the first line above the pragmatic equivalent English translation’ (Puorideme 2019, p. 278).

Analysis of Actions and Accounts of Cash Transfer Targeting, Enumeration, and Enrolment Practices in Ejisu Municipality

In this section, the analysis focuses on the concrete local actions and practices of community focal persons and caregivers in relation to social cash transfer targeting and enrolment practice in local communities of the Ejisu municipality. By this, I refer to the ways in which the concrete actions and practices in cash transfer targeting and enrolment produce and transform socio-political relations in socio-political contexts, whether vertical or horizontal. Consequently, this section explores the actions and accounts of community focal persons and caregivers from separate focus group discussions in the Ejisu municipality. Furthermore, this section explores three transcript excerpts constituting three themes. These chunks/excerpts were selected for pragmatic reasons—in the sense that they serve the purpose of this study and answer the research question. Systematically, the first two transcript excerpts are taken from forty-two minutes, twenty-five seconds (00:42:25) of conversation with eight community focal persons in a focus group discussion. In addition, the last one of the three transcript excerpts comes from thirty-six minutes, twenty seconds (00:36:20) of conversation with eight caregivers in a focus group discussion. As mentioned above, the participants of the focus group discussions were purposefully selected. For the purpose of anonymity, the community focal persons are represented in the transcript as CFP1, CFP2, … CFP8, and the researcher represented as RES in the transcript. Also, the caregivers are represented as FCG1, FCG2, …, FCG8 in the transcript excerpt.

Party Politics and Targeting in Local Communities: “they said they won’t write their names”

This section focuses on community focal persons’ actions and accounts of actual actions and practices of local community members and potential caregivers during targeting and enumeration of poor households to be enrolled onto the cash transfer programme. The transcript presented below is an excerpt of a conversation between the RES and the CFPs in a focus group discussion in which RES asked the CFPs how the targeting and enumeration process happened in their respective communities. As mentioned earlier, the CFPs represented different communities. Certainly, a lot was talked about in this conversation, but for the purpose of this study, as indicated above, the following excerpts were important for shedding light on the subject matter of this study.

Transcript Excerpt 1

figure a

The orderly and meaning-making (Garfinkel 1967; Goffman 1983) accounts of actual actions in the transcript excerpt above suggest that there were forms of distrusts between the enumerators and the community members during the cash transfer targeting in the local communities. For instance, according to CFP3, the local community members “said they won’t write their names” (line 3) although the local community chief was duly informed about the exercise. Consequently, the orderly conduct of targeting and enumeration in the community encountered difficulties owing to differences in political party affiliations of the members of the community. The difficulties are visible in the actions and accounts of CFP3 in line 2, as the actions are embodied realities (Kress 2014; Mondada 2013). Political party discourses in the community were intense during targeting (line 4) as many community members feared going through the process of targeting will automatically disqualify them from casting their votes in the impending national elections.

As it is evident in the accounts of CFP3 in lines 5 and 6, the community members were apprehensive during the targeting exercise and that the enumeration officials “were collecting their id cards, so that they [community members] cannot vote during election”. During targeting, enumeration officials will often ask local community members to produce voter ID cards as proof of citizenship, but “it was tough” (lines 8 to 13). The only way some community members circumvented the intense resistance and contestation of community were to “sneak out of their houses and go for the enumeration” (lines 16 and 18). A programme official at the programme secretariat described community members’ accounts and practices above as “interesting dynamics” and asserts that there were instances in some communities where community members and elders did not allow programme officials and enumerators entry into the community during targeting. According to the programme officer, the elders and members shouted at them saying “WE ARE NOT POOR, WE DON’T WANT ANY INTERVENTION” (Interview with a Programme Officer in Accra, July 2017). Consequently, it is evident from the transcript excerpt above that the intracommunity political party discourses interfered with the hitherto planned actions of state institutions in extending cash transfer to poor households in local communities. Accounts of agitations after targeting, enumeration and enrolment in local communities are presented and analysed in the next section.

The Agitations of Community Members After Targeting: “how do you complain to me”

The transcript excerpt presented and analysed in this section is also taken from the same focus group discussion with community focal persons. However, this excerpt focuses on CFPs accounts of actual agitations of community members that were not selected during the targeting and the enrolment of eligible poor households.

Transcript Excerpt 2

figure b

The account of actions in the transcript above suggests that targeting, enumeration and enrolment of eligible poor households in the community under CFP4 was successful, but the onset of cash payment (lines 1 to 4) created friction between CFP4, the programme officials and non-beneficiary members of the community. However, to avoid complaints and agitation, CFP4 deagentializedFootnote 4 the targeting, enumeration, and enrolment processes, thus, “it is not me, it is the computer that does the selection, how do you complain to me” (lines 7 and 8). Consequently, the actions of CFP4 in lines 9, 10, and 11 and the ongoing accounts and sequences of talk (Schegloff 2007) in the transcript suggest that the community members shifted blame to “the computer” and intracommunity political party discourses (lines 10, 11, 12, and 13) as observed in the previous transcript. Unlike in the previous transcript, the accounts in the transcript above suggest that CFP4 explained to the community members that the targeting, enumeration and enrolment was not done based on political party affiliation, but it is “the computer” that did the selection (lines 16, 17, and 18). However, the agitations from the community members persisted.

figure c

Furthermore, the agitations from the non-beneficiaries in the community intensified anytime officials got into the community to make cash payment to eligible beneficiaries. The actual actions of non-beneficiaries in the accounts of CFP4 from lines 25 to 28 in the transcript excerpt above suggest agitations and frictions between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the community exist and persist. Similarly, in the accounts of a programme officer, in some communities in Northern Ghana when the programme starts paying beneficiaries and caregivers who are mostly women, the men (husbands) approached programme officials and asked that they should replace the names of the women with their (the men) names so that they (men) can receive the cash on behalf of the household (Interview with a Programme Officer in Accra, July 2017). According to the actions of CFP4 in the transcript above, it is evident that non-beneficiaries are drawing on their local or membership knowledge (Garfinkel 1967) of community, members and social relations to justify their discontent at the actions of “the computer”, which they claimed, failed to enumerate and enrol persons with disabilities.

Consequently, it appears there is a disconnect between the technical knowledge and practices, and the local everyday knowledge and practices of members of the local community, even though it appears the relation between these forms of knowledge and the social actors themselves is mediated by “the computer” in the targeting, enumerating, and enrolling processes. Interestingly, the actions and accounts of CFP4 maintain that “what the computer says is the truth” (line 33), thereby disregarding community members’ knowledge outright although the statement appears to be a mediated outcome of multiple actions and practices from multiple categories of social actors. In relation to CFP4 accounts as a district focal person puts it, “you contradict yourself … the system will catch you … it’s not easy to tell lies” (Interview with District Focal Person WWD, August 2017). Thus, even the caregivers of beneficiary households in the local community have come to accept the discursive fact that “the computer” selects the names of eligible poor households without recourse to human agency as represented in the transcript excerpt in the next section below.

“The computer” in-Between the Programme Officials and the Caregivers

This section explores and analyses the caregivers of poor households’ understanding of the targeting, enumeration and enrolment process in the local communities. How these categories of members were enumerated and enrolled, and their relations with the programme officials are the focus of attention in this section. However, the relationship between caregivers and non-beneficiary members in the community is explored in this section because the agitations, resistance and counter-conduct as observed in the analysis of the previous sections were directed at the programme officials, but not fellow community members, especially the caregivers of poor households or those selected for the cash grant. As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of anonymity the names of the participants in the focus group discussions are coded in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Excerpt 3

figure d

In the transcript above, the actions and accounts of the caregivers suggest the (re)production and naturalization of technical knowledge and practices in relation to the targeting, enumeration, and enrolment processes in the local communities. Thus, actions are deagentialized and the practices and processes of targeting and enrolment naturalized, thereby creating power dynamics and relations between caregivers, community members and programme officials. For instance, caregivers have come to accept the fact that “the computer” produces the list of names of the caregivers and eligible households independent of human agency (lines 11 and 12). Similarly, the District Focal Persons have come to accept the discourse of “the computer” as mentioned above, for instance “it is electronic … it is automatic … once you finish … you send it and the system either accepts you or rejects you” (Interview with a District Focal Person in WWD, August 2017). However, it appears the actions and accounts of FCG3 in lines 7, 8, 9, and 10 problematise the taken-for-granted truth about “the computer” doing it all. For, FCG 3, the programme officials (“they” in line 6) “said this person qualified, this person got it, this person did not get it” (lines 7 and 9). In this way, it appears the caregivers are attributing authority and agency to the programme officials, but not “the computer” as they are made to belief. Also, another interesting point about this transcript excerpt and the discussion with caregivers is visible in lines 10 and 11, as FCG5 interrupted FCG3 with the statement “the computer brings the names”. Although FCG5 statement and action appears to be an initiation of a repair in the conversational sequence (Schegloff 2007), which FCG3 completed in lines 12 and 16, I argue that FCG5’s statement is a reproduction of the discourse of “the computer” as observed in the analysis of previous sections. Thus, the discursive practices about “the computer” is power laden, and is obfuscating social relations between caregivers, community members and programme officials.

Analysis of Actions and Accounts of Cash Transfer Targeting, Enumeration, and Enrolment Practices in Wa West District

Like in the analysis of caregivers and community focal persons actions and accounts in EJM, this section focuses on community focal persons and caregivers’ actions and accounts of actual actions of non-beneficiaries in the local communities of WWD in relations to the LEAP cash transfer targeting, enumeration, and enrolment practices. The focus of the analysis is to shed light on the ways the LEAP programme practices, especially targeting as mentioned above, produce and transform socio-political relations between caregivers, community members and programme officials in the local communities of WWD. Thus, this section explores three transcript excerpts constituting three themes. As mentioned above, these chunks/excerpts were selected for pragmatic reasons. Transcripts excerpts four and five below came from a one hour, eleven minutes, twenty-eight seconds (01:11:28) of conversation with seven community focal persons in a focus group discussion. In addition, transcript excerpt six came from twenty-four minutes, fifty-two seconds (00:24:52) of conversation with six caregivers in a focus group discussion. As mentioned above, the participants of the focus group discussions were purposefully selected and their real names coded for the purpose of anonymity.

Antagonistic Social Relations Between Non-beneficiaries and Community Focal Persons

This section explores community focal persons’ actions and accounts of the actual actions and practices of non-beneficiary community members in relation to the LEAP targeting and enrolment. Thus, the ways the actions and practices give rise to antagonistic socio-political relations are explored and analysed. As mentioned earlier, although much was discussed with the community focal persons during the focus group discussion, the chunks or excerpts that serve the purpose of this study are transcribed, presented and analysed in the following transcript excerpts. The names of the community focal persons are represented in codes in the transcript and the researcher represented as RES. The community focal persons were responding to a question the researcher asked about how they conduct the activities of the LEAP programme in WWD as community focal persons.

Transcript Excerpt 4

figure e

The community focal person’s actions and accounts in the transcript above suggest there were two types of LEAP programmes in WWD in the sense that WWD was one of the districts selected for piloting the LEAP programme in the year 2008 as mentioned in the methodology section above. Thus, it was called “THE EMERGENCY LEAP” (line 7), which every household in the selected communities was beneficiary of for three months (lines 13 and 15). However, during the full implementation of the LEAP programme and with the onset of targeting, enumeration, and enrolment practices, some households were not eligible (lines 40 to 43), but “at the community level they don’t know the differences; PEOPLE STILL HAVE THIS EMERGENCY LEAP CARDS” (lines 23 and 24). It is evident in the transcript that the lack of information and education about the differences between the two programmes, and the “permanent” LEAP targeting and enrolment practices created space for antagonistic social relations between many community focal persons and the community members, especially those that were “the emergency LEAP beneficiaries (lines 27 to 37). Consequently, the social relations between community focal persons and non-beneficiary community members worsened as observed in the second part of the transcript presented below.

figure f

In the transcript above, there are two key issues that suggest that the social relations between the community focal persons and non-beneficiary community members are actually antagonistic. Thus, the two issues are worth noting: first, there appears to be a breakdown in sociocultural etiquette in relation to the act of greeting and response as a community bonding practice and mechanism (lines 44, 45, and 46), and second, the tainted political career (lines 56 to 62) and social status of the community focal person as “the board chairman” of a small-town water system in the community (lines 54 and 55). These two points signal difficulties in social relations as these difficulties are visible in the intonational patterns and delivery of AH accounts (Schegloff 2007) and the embodied actions (Mondada 2016) and the actual actions of the non-beneficiaries as represented in the transcript above. As mentioned earlier, social cohesion in both mundane sociocultural and bureaucratic domains in terms of trust and cooperation between members of the community and the community focal persons in relation to the programme strained. In addition to the antagonistic social relations observed in the section above, the part transcript excerpt presented below focuses on exploring community focal persons’ accounts of political interferences in the LEAP programme targeting, enumeration and enrolment in local communities.

figure g

The accounts and actions of community focal persons in the transcript above suggest that there are “real beneficiaries” (line 83) and those who lobby through political party figures and affiliates to become beneficiaries (lines 85, 86, and 87). Thus, the LEAP programme targeting, enumeration, and enrolment is imbued with power relations, and there appears to be nothing community focal persons can do about issues of political interference (line 89) to the extent that local assembly members (local political representatives of community members at the district or municipal level) of non-beneficiary communities want their respective communities to be enrolled onto the programme. Thus, “some assembly members were attacking me why we did not include their communities” (Interview with District Focal Person in EJM, August 2017). According to AH, even when there is a change of government through national elections, non-beneficiary community members want community focal persons replaced because “they feel that the previous government brought you [them]” (lines 74 and 75) or made you a community focal person. Furthermore, like in EJM, the agitations of non-beneficiary community members intensify whenever cash payment is made to eligible poor households in the local communities. Interestingly, some local assembly members take some communities they think need LEAP support to the district social welfare office to be enrolled onto the programme but “I said LEAP is not that way, I don’t have the power to just recruit somebody in LEAP” (Interview with District Focal Person in EJM, August 2017).

Agitations and Confrontations of Non-beneficiaries in Local Communities

This section explores and analyses community focal persons’ accounts of actual actions of non-beneficiary community members that engender agitations and confrontations between the community focal persons and some community members. In the transcript excerpt presented below, the community focal persons were responding to a question the researcher asked, whether in the course of their duties they had encountered some members of local communities that rejected the LEAP programme targeting and enrolment apparatus?

Transcript Excerpt 5

figure h

In relation to the question the researcher posed above, the actions and accounts of the community focal persons do not suggest community members rejected the LEAP programme targeting and enrolment apparatus in WWD (lines 4 to 16). On the contrary, whilst some community members were “crying” to be registered or enumerated (lines 13, 14, and 15), other community members were “fighting” to be registered or enumerated (lines 6 and 22). AD’s sequential accounts of the actual actions of some non-beneficiary community members in the transcript above give clarity and weight to the intensity of the agitations and confrontations within the local communities. For instance, some community members were forcing community focal persons to enumerate and enrol them onto the LEAP programme (lines 23 and 24), and some community focal persons were attacked because the LEAP programme targeting, enumeration, and enrolment apparatus disqualifies them (line 31). Also, some non-beneficiary community members threatened to stop the LEAP programme from making payments to eligible poor households if they (the non-beneficiaries) were not enrolled onto the programme to receive the cash grant (lines 28, 29, and 30). The non-beneficiary communities’ members “think that you can just walk in and register for LEAP, so when they come here and you explain to them, they would not understand” (Interview with District Focal Person in EJM, August 2017). 

Agitations Between Caregivers and Non-beneficiaries: “they keep insulting you”

This section explores caregivers’ actions and accounts of actual agitations from non-beneficiary community members in the local communities. As indicated earlier, the transcript excerpt of the conversation is taken from a focus group discussion the researcher had with caregivers in a local community in WWD. Furthermore, the chunk was extracted from an extended conversation for pragmatic reasons, and the names of the caregivers represented in transcript are coded for the purpose of anonymity. Also, the conversational sequences of the caregivers were in response to a question the researcher asked about whether some members of the community were not willing to participate in the LEAP programme.

Transcript Excerpt 6

figure i

Like in the accounts of the community focal persons analysed above, the accounts of caregivers in the transcript above suggest that some community members were not happy that they were not enrolled onto the LEAP programme (lines 9, 10, and 12). However, it appears some households in the community did not present themselves for enumeration as observed in the actions of MCG3 in lines 13 and 14. Although MCG3’s actions appear to be mundane, however, as observed in the analysis of community focal persons’ accounts of resistance in the transcript from EJM community, it appears that intracommunity political party discourses and affiliations might have accounted for the resistance observed in MCG3’s account. Also, it is evident in the accounts of the programme officer at the programme secretariat mentioned above, that some community members refuse programme officials entry into some communities due to political party tensions between members in such communities. Thus, the analysis of the second part of this transcript excerpt presented below sheds light on the aspects of agitations.

figure j

Unlike in the analysis of WWD community focal persons’ accounts of agitation and confrontation from non-beneficiaries in the local communities, which appears to be bottom-up vertical agitations, in the transcript above there appear to be horizontal agitations. Thus, the agitations exist between caregivers of eligible poor households and non-beneficiary community members. For instance, the non-beneficiaries get angry (lines 16 and 17) and “keep insulting” (lines 18 and 19) the caregivers of eligible poor households anytime they (caregivers) received cash payments from the LEAP programme. The non-beneficiaries accused the programme officials especially the community focal persons for selecting their favourites to be enrolled onto the programme (lines 20 and 42). Thus, “it is you they like, as for them, they don’t like them” (lines 35 and 36). Also, the accounts of the caregivers in the transcript above suggest there is an emerging discourse of “us” and “them” in the local communities, and this appears evident in the actions and accounts of MCG2 and MCG3 in lines 33 to 38 in the conversational sequences.

Discussion of the Findings

This section presents and discusses four key findings from the analysis sections of this paper. First, the pervasive negative discourse of “us” (beneficiaries) and “them” (non-beneficiaries) in local communities undermines cohesive social relations. Second, inadequate information dissemination about the purpose and practices of the LEAP programme in local communities creates tension. Third, pervasive intracommunity political party discourses as well as meso and macro levels political structures and interferences fuel tension and antagonism. Four, targeting, enumeration, and enrolment practices and actions are deagentialized and cohesive social relations impinged. Thus, these findings are systematically discussed below in relation to the relevant studies outlined in the literature review section above.

It is evident in the literature section of this study that cash transfer programmes produce transformative socio-political outcomes at micro, meso and macro levels (Molyneux et al. 2016),and these effects are both positive and negative, and vary with context (Pavanello et al. 2016). In addition to the findings of these studies, this study demonstrated that the LEAP targeting, enumeration, and enrolment practices produce the discourse of “us” and “them” in local communities, which strains cohesive social relations as such discourses undermine trust and social cooperation amongst people and groups, which are key features that hold society together (Leininger et al. 2020). Thus, this development cuts across the local communities in EJM and WWD and creates intracommunity tensions in terms of agitations and confrontations, which are inimical to cohesive social relations and transformative socio-political outcomes. Although, EJM communities were enrolled onto the programme less than a year before the commencement of this study, it is quite evident that the negative discursive production of “us” and “them” is equally rife in the accounts of caregivers and community focal persons in WWD communities which had spent close to ten years in the programme.

Furthermore, as cohesive societies depend on the trust and cooperation of individual members and groups, it appears the LEAP cash transfer in Ghana struggles to produce and promote vertical and horizontal trust and cooperation amongst the key stakeholders of the programme in the society. Similar to the findings of Pavanello et al. (2016) as mentioned above, and documented evidence of a disconnection between policy and practice within the LEAP cash transfer programme in Ghana (Abdulai et al. 2019), this study shows that inadequate information dissemination about the LEAP programme’s purpose and practices in the local communities of EJM and WWD creates intracommunity tensions and antagonistic social relations between programme officials especially community focal persons and non-beneficiary community members, which do not produce and promote transformative outcomes. Consequently, as the evidence shows, it does not appear to matter so much about how long communities in a particular district were enrolled onto the LEAP programme, intracommunity tensions and antagonistic relations between the key stakeholders persist and undermine trust and cooperation as information to stakeholders about the purpose and practices of the programme remains inadequate in both EJM and WWD.

At the meso and macro levels, cash transfer programmes are entangled in politics and power relations (Adato et al. 2016; Hickey and King 2016), which in turn shape their effects in socio-political contexts. Also, Adato et al. (2016) found that state-citizens relations are shaped by local representative political structures. In addition to these findings, this study demonstrates that the LEAP cash transfer programme’s socio-political outcomes in EJM and WWD are shaped by intracommunity political party discourses as well as meso and macro level political structures. Thus, intracommunity political party discourses, meso and macro level politics drive and influence the LEAP programme outcomes in the sense that these discourses account for non-beneficiaries’ agitations, antagonistic social relations and confrontations in local communities. As the LEAP cash transfer programme in Ghana is not immune or neutral to meso and macro level political discourses and polarised political party interests as observed above, it will be difficult for the programme to produce trust and cooperation amongst people and groups in communities whether they were enrolled onto the programme less than a year or close to ten years earlier; for instance, as in the case of communities in EJM and WWD as indicated above.

Also, a study of the LEAP cash transfer programme in Ghana showed that delays in resolving grievances contribute to negative social relations, and that beneficiaries’ agency is inhibited (Oduro 2015). In a similar way, this study demonstrates that the LEAP cash transfer programme targeting, enumeration, and enrolment practice is deagentialized, thus, human agency is inhibited. In this way, human social relations between programme officials, caregivers and non-beneficiaries are frozen thereby engendering delays in reporting, processing, and resolving grievances and technical problems. Consequently, “the computer in-between” does the job and both caregivers and non-beneficiaries hardly make any complaints because they believe it is unthinkable to ask the computer any questions. As the programme practices get bureaucratically and technically sophisticated, and problems take a longer time to be resolved, or remain unresolved, trust and cooperation eventually diminish amongst people in communities and between meso and macro level officials, which undermines social cohesion. As such problems cut across the various phases (from targeting to payment) of the programme in both EJM and WWD; it does not really matter the length of time communities are enrolled onto the programme, if the problems remain unresolved, trust and cooperation in both EJM and WWD communities will wane and undermine social cohesion.

Conclusion

Following from the analysis and discussions presented above, this section summarises the key elements of the content of this study comprising the research question, theory and methodology, the contribution, and limitations. As mentioned in the introduction section above, the question this study asks is: Do the actions, interactions, practices of cash transfer programme officials, caregivers, and non-beneficiary community members promote cohesive social relations in a specific socio-political context? The data type and objects of inquiry include talk-in-interaction, embodied actions and accounts of actions from focus group discussions with community focal persons and caregivers in EJM and WWD in relation to broader socio-political discourses in Ghana.

Overall, trust and cooperation for common good as some of the key features of social cohesion remain elusive in relation to the LEAP cash programme; thus, the programme struggles to produce social cohesion in the socio-political context of Ghana. However, it has the potential of producing social cohesion if the above outlined underlying issues that undermine trust and cooperation, and generally social cohesion are addressed. More importantly, social cohesion in the social cultural domain does persist with or without the LEAP programme but the same cannot be said about the bureaucratic domain. Also, the LEAP programme has greater potential in contributing to the building of social cohesion in the sociocultural domain than the bureaucratic domain in which taken-for-granted asymmetric power relations between community members and public officials persist. The findings of this study outlined in the discussion section above contribute to an improved understanding of cash transfer programmes’ socio-political effects and relations between programme officials, caregivers and non-beneficiary community members shaped by actual actions and interaction in Ghana’s socio-political context. Consequently, these findings provide direction for social policy making, programme design and implementation of cash transfer programmes towards transformative outcomes and cohesive social relations.

However, as this study is not a longitudinal study, it is unable to report long term effects of social cohesion or the absence of it in relation to the LEAP cash transfer programme in the socio-political context of Ghana. Also, it is a qualitative study, so it is unable to provide the quantitative measurement of the effect of social cohesion. Again, this study is conducted in Ghana’s sociocultural and political context; thus, it is difficult to generalise these findings in the sense that the programme is unique and country specific. Thus, a similar study employing discourse study analytic framework to investigate the concrete actions and accounts of actual actions of key actors of cash transfer programmes’ practice elsewhere in developing countries’ contexts could emphasis the findings of this study and add to literature about transformative and socio-political outcomes of cash transfer programmes in developing countries.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The structure of authority within the LEAP cash transfer programme (Puorideme, 2018, p. 100)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

 The spatial context of the study represented in the map is reconstructed by the author in the year 2019 using the Geographic Resources Analysis Support System geographic information system software version 7.6.1 (GRASS GIS 7.6.1)

Full size image