Two years ago, Mike O’Sullivan and I did a post on gender and agriculture. One of the things we pointed out was that there was a pretty dismal lack of evidence on interventions in agriculture (forget gender). So I was pretty excited when the recent Campbell Collaboration systematic review on “the effects of training, innovation and new technology on African smallholder farmers’ economic outcomes and food
What works to get children into school? How can we improve their learning outcomes? Glewwe and Muralidharan (2015) have a review of educational research in developing countries that seeks to answer just these questions…
Yesterday we talked about some of the limitations in systematic reviews of educational research, and how many of the reviews have – on the face of them – varying recommendations. The main recommendations as to what works (principally drawn from the abstracts and introductions) are in the figure below.
With the rapid expansion of impact evaluation evidence has come the cottage industry of the systematic review.
While discussing a cash transfer program, a senior government official in Nicaragua spoke for many when she worried that “husbands were waiting for wives to return in order to take the money and spend it on alcohol” [Moore 2009]. This concern around cash transfer programs comes up again and again. For at least some of the poor, some will say, “Isn’t that how they became poor in the first place?”