Given the massive debate in the U.S. about government health insurance, the just released results of a new experiment are justly making headlines. In 2004, the state of Oregon, due to budgetary shortfalls, closed its public health insurance program for low-income people. In early 2008, the state decided it had enough budget to fund 10,000 new spots. Given that it expected demand for these new slots to far exceed supply, the state Government opened up a sign-up window, getting 90,000 people to sign-up for a waitlist, and then used random lottery draws to select people from the waitlist.
Last year the British Medical Journal published the results of an impact evaluation of local immunization campaigns with and without incentives in rural India. Full immunization rates were very low in the study area (2%) and the researchers wanted to test two nested approaches to improving participation in immunization campaigns.
Happy 4th of July. Believe it or not, there is a recent paper which aims to estimate the impact of celebrating this holiday. Here’s the abstract: “Do childhood events shape adult political views and behavior? This paper investigates the impact of Fourth of July celebrations in the US during childhood on partisanship and participation later in life.
In research, as in life, first impressions matter a lot. Most sensible people don’t go on a first date disheveled, wearing sweatpants and their favorite raggedy hoodie from their alma mater, but rather wait to break those out well into a relationship. Working papers are the research equivalent of sweatshirts with pizza stains on them, but we wear them on our first date with our audience.
A recent article in the New York Times describes a “stealth survey” to measure the difficulties in accessing timely health care. This U.S. government sponsored survey involves a team of “mystery shoppers” to pose as potential patients on the phone in order to measure the efforts required to schedule a doctor’s appointment as a new patient.
I want to thank Catherine, David and some anonymous readers for their responses to last week’s post on who pays for evaluations. Their thoughtful responses led to me think more about objectivity and engagement with project teams, so here it goes:
That’s one blunt message from my new working paper with Marcel Fafchamps, Simon Quinn and Chris Woodruff, which replicates in Ghana a study that Chris and I had previously done in Sri Lanka with Suresh de Mel. In the new experiment, we take almost 800 microenterprises in urban Ghana, and randomly divide them into treatment and control groups.
IPA's Microsavings and Payments Innovation Initiative (MPIII) has just launched a call for expressions of interest-
We know funding is often a major issue for people with good ideas looking to get started doing impact evaluations, so are happy to advertise new opportunities for funding as they become available - just let us know if you have money you want to give out!
- Financial Sector