3 ms·

Lots of research has been done on GiveDirectly's effects. See here: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly#Dothecashtransferscausepro

Lots of research has been done on GiveDirectly's effects. See here: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly#Dothecashtransferscauseproblemsandcomplicationsthatoffsettheirpositiveimpact http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-dir...

tempestn 11y ago
Thanks. From that page, the part that most directly addresses my concerns is this: > Do grants distort local markets? It seems possible to us that a large infusion of cash into an area could alter economic opportunities for both recipients and non-recipients. Such effects could be positive (for example by spurring investment and job creation or by increasing the availability of retail goods) or negative (for example, by leading primarily to local inflation). The limited evidence addressing this issue in the RCT of GiveDirectly's program in Rarieda[1] and the broader literature on cash transfers points to no distortion. There is an ongoing RCT[2] of GiveDirectly's program that is testing for macroeconomic effects. Not a ton of concrete results as yet, especially for the larger macroeconomic effects, but at least from that one study the local effects appear to be minor. Certainly more research would be valuable. [1] http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cash-transfers#Whatarethepotentialdownsidesoftheintervention http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas... [2] http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly#GE http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-dir...
- notahacker 11y ago
  The big problem with these studies and local economies is that results are likely to depend very much on localised factors such as proximity to larger markets, not to mention what proportion of the village actually receives the handout, and how much of the existing village economy revolves around people with more wealth than the handout recipients. I think it's pretty much impossible to give a definitive yes/no answer. It's also worth pointing out that the "minor effects" are minor because they're not statistically significant for the sample rather than because they're not necessarily there. Haushofer and Shapiro, for example, finds that whilst recipients spend $36/month more, comparably poor non-recipients in a village spend $7.5 per month less. The sample size and volatility means the latter part of result isn't statistically significant, but on the other hand it is more consistent with the effects on the poor that didn't receive handouts in these particular villages being negative, and indeed if only a fifth of the village received the subsidy it's even consistent with the benefits being entirely positional, even though the dispersal of the losses amongst a larger population makes it difficult to precisely gauge.

tempestn 11y ago

Thanks. From that page, the part that most directly addresses my concerns is this: > Do grants distort local markets? It seems possible to us that a large infusion of cash into an area could alter economic opportunities for both recipients and non-recipients. Such effects could be positive (for example by spurring investment and job creation or by increasing the availability of retail goods) or negative (for example, by leading primarily to local inflation). The limited evidence addressing this issue in the RCT of GiveDirectly's program in Rarieda[1] and the broader literature on cash transfers points to no distortion. There is an ongoing RCT[2] of GiveDirectly's program that is testing for macroeconomic effects. Not a ton of concrete results as yet, especially for the larger macroeconomic effects, but at least from that one study the local effects appear to be minor. Certainly more research would be valuable. [1] http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cash-transfers#Whatarethepotentialdownsidesoftheintervention http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas... [2] http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly#GE http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-dir...

notahacker 11y ago
The big problem with these studies and local economies is that results are likely to depend very much on localised factors such as proximity to larger markets, not to mention what proportion of the village actually receives the handout, and how much of the existing village economy revolves around people with more wealth than the handout recipients. I think it's pretty much impossible to give a definitive yes/no answer. It's also worth pointing out that the "minor effects" are minor because they're not statistically significant for the sample rather than because they're not necessarily there. Haushofer and Shapiro, for example, finds that whilst recipients spend $36/month more, comparably poor non-recipients in a village spend $7.5 per month less. The sample size and volatility means the latter part of result isn't statistically significant, but on the other hand it is more consistent with the effects on the poor that didn't receive handouts in these particular villages being negative, and indeed if only a fifth of the village received the subsidy it's even consistent with the benefits being entirely positional, even though the dispersal of the losses amongst a larger population makes it difficult to precisely gauge.