Markus Goldstein's blog
So I spent the last couple of weeks on internal flights to new places, and bumping (really bumping) around in the back of various pickup trucks. A couple of interesting experiences:
- Notes from the Field
You are feeling not so well. You go to the doctor. She is a good doctor. She runs some tests, tells you nothing is wrong with you and you leave, ready to get back to work. Why are you so much more ready to work now then you were before you saw your doctor?
The evidence on the effectiveness of business training is, at best, mixed (for an example, see my previous post on David McKenzie and Chris Woodruff's artful review). As David and Chris point out, part of the problem was methods (esp. sample size). But even when the methods were good, the results were often lackluster, particularly for women.
People in developing countries, much like people everywhere, save. And in Sub-Saharan Africa, beyond banks, folks save through a bunch of techniques -- ranging from the less sophisticated under the mattress savings to the more complex community-based rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs). Given this plethora of savings options, one might wonder if an NGO program that set up savings groups but injected no capital or lockboxes or any other capital intensive intervention might make a
I recently was thinking about what impact evaluations in development can tell us about poverty reduction. On one level this is a ridiculous question. Most of the impact evaluations out there are designed to look at interventions to improve people's lives and the work is done in developing countries, so it follows that we are making poor people's lives better, right? That's less obvious.
I was recently working with an implementing agency to design an impact evaluation and we were having trouble reaching a point where there was going to be a viable impact evaluation that answered big questions about the efficacy of the intervention. Looking back, part of the problem was that this agency was the implementer, not the funder. And they were paid by the funder based on reaching a certain number of people and having those people participate in the program.
Last week I blogged about faked data in household surveys and a neat paper which told us how it might matter for results, but also gave us some tools to find the fakes. This week, I want to focus on one of the tools that that paper used: Benford’s Law.
So there I was, a graduate student doing my PhD fieldwork. In the rather hot office at the University of Ghana, I was going through questionnaire after questionnaire checking for consistency, missed questions and other dimensions of quality. All of a sudden I saw a pattern: in the time allocation questions, men in one village seemed to be doing the exact same things, for the same amount of time, on two very different days of the week.
This week is the World Bank’s annual conference on development economics. One of the papers being presented is by my colleague Kate Orkin (together with co-authors Tanguy Bernard, Stefan Dercon and Alemayehu Taffesse) and takes a look at a video intervention and its impact on aspirations among poor folks in Ethiopia. In particular, what Kate and her co-authors are asking is: can we shift aspirations and behavior by showing people more of what is possible?