Weekly Development Links #1

Each Wednesday at IDinsight, one of our tech team members, Akib Khan, posts a few links (mostly from Twitter!) to what he’s been reading in development that week. For the next three weeks, he’s on leave and I am taking over! Thought I should cross-post my selections (also mostly curated from #EconTwitter):

Cash Transfer Bonanza: The details matter
Blattman et al. just released a paper following up on previous 4-year results from a one-time cash transfer of $400, now reporting 9-year results (see first 3 links). To liven up the internal discussion, I’m adding critiques by Ashu Handa (UNC Transfer Project / UNICEF-Innocenti economist and old family friend), who has cautioned against lack of nuance in interpretation of CT study results, esp. around program implementation details like who is distributing grants, the size of the grants, and how frequently they are given – he studies social protection programs giving repeat cash transfers.

Diff-in-diff treatment timing paper… with GIFs!
Andrew Goodman-Bacon (what a name!) has a new paper that all of #EconTwitter is going crazy over. It deals with some methodological issues using diff-in-diff when treatment turns on at different times for different groups, and other scenarios where timing becomes important. Real paper not for the faint hearted, but the Twitter thread has some great GIFs!

African debt to China: reality doesn’t match the hype

Bonus link: Eritrea & Ethiopia border opening party

Look out for: Market impacts of cash transfers

Forthcoming – “General Equilibrium Effects of Cash Transfers,” from Paul NiehausJohannes HaushoferTed Miguel and Michael Walker, answering the question: What are the market impacts of an inflow of ~15% of local GDP?

I have to say I barely understand what’s going on in a “market” … my economic background is very individual- and household-focused.

But understanding the effect of an intervention on a community as a whole, not just on those treated, seems really important. Partially, this is why we look at and consider spillover effects – the effect of an intervention on the neighbors of the treated, who didn’t receive the program themselves.

General equilibrium or market effects investigate a level up from spillover effects and treatment effects – they look at the cumulative impact of the program to the way the economy operates.

I couldn’t explain how one studies a specific market, or what counts as being part of the market, in any clear terms, but I’m still excited for this upcoming paper on the market-level effects of cash transfers, a point that has been debated recently, after evidence of potential negative spillover effects came out.

 

You have to pay to be published??

Clockwise from top left: Dr. Francisca Oboh-Ikuenobe, Dr. Nii Quaynor, Mohamed Baloola, Dr. Florence Muringi Wambugu.

I was reading about the new African journal – Scientific African – that will cater specifically to the needs of African scientists. Awesome!

Among the advantages of the new journal is the fact that “publication in Scientific African will cost $200, around half of what it costs in most recognised journals.”

Wait.

You have to pay to be published in an academic journal? Dang.

I guess that cost is probably built into whatever research grant you’re working on, but in most other publications, I thought writers got paid to contribute content. I guess it’s so that there’s not a direct incentive to publish as much as possible, which could lead to more falsified results? Although it seems like the current model has a lot of messed up incentives, too.

“Obviously” in academic writing

Academic writing is full of bad habits. For example, using words like “obviously,” “clearly,” or “of course.” If the author’s claim or reasoning really is obvious to you, these words make you feel like you’re in on the secret; you’re part of the club; you’ve been made a part of the “in” group.

But when you don’t know what they’re talking about, the author has alienated you from their work. They offer no explanation of the concept because it seems so simple to them that they simply won’t deign to explain themselves clearly to those not already “in the know.”

Part of an academic’s job is to clearly explain every argument in their papers. It is lazy and exclusionary to imply readers should already understand a concept or a path of reasoning.

At worst, it just makes you sound rude and superior:

“Advertising is, of course, the obvious modern method of identifying buyers and sellers.” – Stigler, “The Economics of Information”

He really doubled-down on how evident this fact is, which only tells the reader how smart he thinks he is. The sentence could have read, “Advertising is the preferred modern method of identifying buyers and sellers,” and could have included a citation.

On the other hand, a non-exclusionary use of “obviously”:

“Obviously, rural Ecuador and the United States are likely to differ in a large number of ways, but the results in this (and other recent) papers that show a shifting food Engel curve point to the risks inherent in assuming that the Engel curve is stable.” – Shady & Rosero paper on cash transfers to women

The authors had previously compared two papers from two very different contexts; they use “obviously” to acknowledge the potential issues with comparing these two settings. This is an acceptable use case because the statement that follows actually is obvious and is bringing any reader on board by acknowledging a possible critique of the argument. It is an acknowledgement of possible lack on the author’s part, rather than a test of the reader’s intelligence or prior knowledge.