The case for targeting cash or in-kind transfers to the poor - that it maxi
mises cost-effectiveness and equitable allocation of scarce public resource
s - is partially offset by the administrative, social and political costs t
hat targeting introduces. This article examines practical applications of t
hree alternative targeting mechanisms: self-targeting, individual assessmen
t, and group characteristics, It finds that current international 'conventi
onal wisdom' - which favours, for example, introducing gender quotas to pub
lic works projects and minimising administration costs to maximise transfer
s to beneficiaries - often leads to perverse outcomes, which have motivated
innovative modifications in specific local contexts.