3 ms·

compliance and monitoring, most likely. The cash was conditioned on various attendance metrics, and the data collection process with such things is never as sm

compliance and monitoring, most likely. The cash was conditioned on various attendance metrics, and the data collection process with such things is never as smooth as you'd like (I did a stint at a non-profit that ran experiments like this on behalf of economists).

r00fus 9y ago
I wonder if it'd be more successful if that overhead were dropped to say 10-20% (via automation and simplification of qualifications)
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Why would it? The study said that they found no significant effect, not that the return was poor relative to costs. It's possible that shifting the saved administrative costs into more aid would appreciably change the outcome, but it seems more likely that it's a structural problem with the program: ie, that CCTs are optimizing the wrong input.
- setgree 9y ago
  Regarding whether the effect would have been larger if the subjects got more cash -- in the original Progresa study, the ` size of the cash transfer is large, corresponding to about a 25 percent average increase in income of households living in extreme poverty' [0] (p.4). (Though in dollar amounts, if they are using the 'extreme poverty' metric of $1.25/day/person, we're talking about a lot less money in absolute terms). So there's something to this. But this is hard to square away with this newest study's findings of modest adverse impacts on labor participation rates. This, combined with null health effects, suggests that the CCTs are performing an income substitution effect, and that what people are doing with their newfound free-time is probably leisure rather than other forms of 'work' (i.e. exercising, cooking healthier meals, etc.) that policymakers might wish the subjects undertake. [0] https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/449%20Progresa%20Health%20Gertler%202001.pdf https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publica...

r00fus 9y ago

I wonder if it'd be more successful if that overhead were dropped to say 10-20% (via automation and simplification of qualifications)

wutbrodo 9y ago
Why would it? The study said that they found no significant effect, not that the return was poor relative to costs. It's possible that shifting the saved administrative costs into more aid would appreciably change the outcome, but it seems more likely that it's a structural problem with the program: ie, that CCTs are optimizing the wrong input.
setgree 9y ago
Regarding whether the effect would have been larger if the subjects got more cash -- in the original Progresa study, the ` size of the cash transfer is large, corresponding to about a 25 percent average increase in income of households living in extreme poverty' [0] (p.4). (Though in dollar amounts, if they are using the 'extreme poverty' metric of $1.25/day/person, we're talking about a lot less money in absolute terms). So there's something to this. But this is hard to square away with this newest study's findings of modest adverse impacts on labor participation rates. This, combined with null health effects, suggests that the CCTs are performing an income substitution effect, and that what people are doing with their newfound free-time is probably leisure rather than other forms of 'work' (i.e. exercising, cooking healthier meals, etc.) that policymakers might wish the subjects undertake. [0] https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/449%20Progresa%20Health%20Gertler%202001.pdf https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publica...