Syndicate content

Cambodia

The power of a label: Merit scholarships vs needs-based scholarships?

David Evans's picture



Labels matter. Girls who are reminded of stereotypes about how girls perform in math do worse on math exams (in some circumstances). Publicly revealing the caste of students in India led to worse performance of students from castes that were traditionally lower in the caste hierarchy. In the U.S., posting a banner with vegetables in the form of cartoon characters increased schoolchildren’s consumption of vegetables by 90 percent. These are all forms of labeling. New research suggests that labeling matters in school scholarships – merit-based versus needs-based – as well.

Interest rate caps: The theory and the practice

Aurora Ferrari's picture

Ceilings on lending rates remain a widely-used instrument in many EMDEs as well as developed economies. The economic and political rationale for putting ceilings on lending rates is to protect consumers from usury or to make credit cheaper and more accessible. Our recent working paper shows that at least 76 countries around the world, representing more than 80% of global GDP and global financial assets, impose some restrictions on lending rates. These countries are not clustered in specific regions or income groups, but spread across all geographic and income dimensions.

Trade has been a global force for less poverty and higher incomes

Ana Revenga's picture

In the ongoing debate about the benefits of trade, we must not lose sight of a vital fact. Trade and global integration have raised incomes across the world, while dramatically cutting poverty and global inequality. 

Within some countries, trade has contributed to rising inequality, but that unfortunate result ultimately reflects the need for stronger safety nets and better social and labor programs, not trade protection.

Financial incentives in health: the magic bullet we were hoping for?

Adam Wagstaff's picture

After years of bad news from developing countries about high rates of health worker absenteeism, and low rates of delivery of key health interventions, along came what seemed like a magic bullet: financial incentives. Rather than paying providers whether or not they show up to work, and whether or not they deliver key interventions, doesn’t it make sense to pay them—at least in part—according to what they do? And if, after doing their cost-benefit calculations, women decide not to have their baby delivered in a health facility, not to get antenatal care, and not take their child to be immunized, then doesn’t it make sense to try to change the benefit-cost ratio by paying them to do so?