How these pathways play out depends on intra-household gender dynamics, which are in turn are affected by local gender regimes and socio-economic inequalities within a setting or beneficiary population. Likewise, programs that generate smaller shifts in relationship power appear more easily accepted by men than those catalysing larger disruptions (Wasilkowska 2011, Slate and Mphale 2008, Maldonado 2005). For example, Buller and colleagues (2016) note that increased cash and in-kind transfers to women was accepted by Colombian and Ecuadorian men in part because it was intended for children’s nutrition, a domain already within the domestic r esponsibilities of women. Indeed, how' a program is ‘‘framed” and the meaning imbued to cash by a program’s stated intent (e.g. for women’s entrepreneurship versus child health) may influence the transfer’s impact on gender dynamics and IPV as much as any other program feature.