Berk Ozler's blog
I recently finished teaching smart and hard working honours students. In Growth and Development, we covered equity and talked about inequalities of opportunity (and outcomes) across countries, across regions within countries, between different ethnic groups, genders, etc. In Population and Labour Economics, we covered intra-household bargaining models and how spending on children may vary depending on the relative bargaining power of the parents.
I can’t go more than a few minutes through my inbox, or my Twitter, Facebook, and RSS feeds without running into yet another piece about the promise of cash transfers.
One of my favorite bloggers, Andrew Gelman, has a piece in Slate.com in which he uses a psychology paper that purported to show women are more likely to wear red or pink when they are most fertile as an example of the ‘scientific mass production of spurious statistical significance.’ Here is an excerpt:
- RCT reporting
Should the identity of the author affect the interpretation of the existing evidence? You might answer ‘no,’ but it does. And when it does, it may affect the decision of influential people and institutions, such as a multilateral donor organization or, in the following case, a high level panel discussing the post-MDGs development agenda.
Last week, I talked about the difficulty of categorizing cash transfer programs neatly into bins of unconditional (UCT) and conditional (CCT) ones.
Many policymakers are interested in the role of conditions in cash transfer programs. Do they improve outcomes of interest more than money alone? Are there trade-offs? Is there a role for conditions for political rather than technocratic reasons? It’s easy to extend the list of questions for a good while. However, before one can get to these questions, there is a much more basic question that needs to be answered (for any policymaker contemplating running one of these programs at any level): “What do you mean by a conditional (or unconditional) cash transfer program?”
A new study presented at Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections found that a community intervention (a package that improves take-up, provides community engagement, and post-test support)