Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Raj Raina on
Many thanks for referring me to the link. Your argument seems reasonable. But at the same time, Earth Institutes' response (below) to the above questions seems just as reasonable. Why is not ok to simply report on progress and let people do their own subtractions and additions to the results? (Because as you mention the counterfactual is not perfect and as we know, development/progress in not inevitable. Than, it is quite possible that a village might have seen reverse development without MV interventions and now using the same logic MV would be underreporting its results.) "In this example, a simple difference-in-difference model could be falsely interpreted as showing that that the MVP interventions increased the yield by only 1 ton, and that to claim a 2 ton increase overstates the results of the interventions. This is obviously an erroneous conclusion. The MVP intervention (100kg of fertilizer and 10kg of seed) is working exactly as advertised: raising yields by 2 tons. Outside of the villages, half the intervention package is producing half the results. There is no “over-reporting” of results, merely an increased treatment dose in the MV, which is exactly the correct point." MV blog