Brought to you by #NEUDC2018! Check out mini summaries of the many awesome papers featured at this conference here, and download papers here. These are three that really struck me.
1. Psychological trainings increase chlorination rates Haushofer, John, and Orkin 2018: (RCT in Kenya) “One group received a two-session executive function intervention that aimed to improve planning and execution of plans; a second received a two-session time preference intervention aimed at reducing present bias and impatience. A third group receives only information about the benefits of chlorination, and a pure control group received no intervention.” Executive function and time preference trainings led to stat sig increases in chlorination and stat sig decreases in diarrhea rates.
2. Conditional cash transfers reduce suicides! Christian, Hensel, and Roth 2018: (RCT in Indonesia) This paper is so cool! One mechanism is by mitigating the negative impact of bad agricultural shocks and decreasing depression. “We examine how income shocks affect the suicide rate in Indonesia. We use both a randomized conditional cash transfer experiment, and a difference-in-differences approach exploiting the cash transfer’s nation-wide roll-out. We find that the cash transfer reduced yearly suicides by 0.36 per 100,000 people, corresponding to an 18 percent decrease. Agricultural productivity shocks also causally affect suicide rates. Moreover, the cash transfer program reduces the causal impact of the agricultural productivity shocks, suggesting an important role for policy interventions. Finally, we provide evidence for a psychological mechanism by showing that agricultural productivity shocks affect depression.”
3. Women police stations increased reporting of crimes against women Amaral, Bhalotra, and Prakash 2018: (in India) “Using an identification strategy that exploits the staggered implementation of women police stations across cities and nationally representative data on various measures of crime and deterrence, we find that the opening of police stations increased reported crime against women by 22 percent. This is due to increases in reports of female kidnappings and domestic violence. In contrast, reports of gender specific mortality, self-reported intimate-partner violence and other non-gender specific crimes remain unchanged.”
1. 11 years later: Experimental evidence on scaling up education reforms in Kenya (TL;DR gov’t didn’t adopt well)
(This paper was published in Journal of Public Econ 11 years after the project started and 5 years after the first submission!) “New teachers offered a fixed-term contract by an international NGO significantly raised student test scores, while teachers offered identical contracts by the Kenyan government produced zero impact. Observable differences in teacher characteristics explain little of this gap. Instead, data suggests that bureaucratic and political opposition to the contract reform led to implementation delays and a differential interpretation of identical contract terms. Additionally, contract features that produced larger learning gains in both the NGO and government treatment arms were not adopted by the government outside of the experimental sample.”
Total causal effect (TCE) = weighted average of the intent to treat effect (ITT) and the spillover effect on the non-treated (SNT)
Importance: “RCTs that fail to account for spillovers can produce biased estimates of intention-to-treat effects, while finding meaningful treatment effects but failing to observe deleterious spillovers can lead to misconstrued policy conclusions. Therefore, reporting the TCE is as important as the ITT, if not more important in many cases: if the program caused a bunch of people to escape poverty while others to fall into it, leaving the overall poverty rate unchanged (TCE=0), you’d have to argue much harder to convince your audience that your program is a success because the ITT is large and positive.”
Context: Zeitlin and McIntosh recent paper comparing cash and a USAID health + nutrition program in Rwanda. From their blog post: “In our own work the point estimates on village-level impacts are consistent with negative spillovers of the large transfer on some outcomes (they are also consistent with Gikuriro’s village-level health and nutrition trainings having improved health knowledge in the overall population). Cash may look less good as one thinks of welfare impacts on a more broadly defined population. Donors weighing cash-vs-kind decisions will need to decide how much weight to put on non-targeted populations, and to consider the accumulated evidence on external consequences.”
3. Why don’t people work less when you give them cash?
Excellent post by authors of new paper on VoxDev, listing many different mechanisms and also looks at how this changes by type of transfer (e.g. gov’t conditional and unconditional, remittances, etc.)
BONUS: More gender equality = greater differences in preferences on values like altruism, patience or trust (ft. interesting map)