- How to measure risky sex? In VoxEU, Lucia Corno and Áureo de Paula argue that self-reported data may therefore be a more reliable measure of risky behaviours than the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections when the probability of transmission is low.
Guest post by Abhijeet Singh
Last week on this blog, David wondered whether we should give up on using SDs for comparing effect sizes across impact evaluations. I wish that question was asked more often in the field of impact evaluations in education, where such comparisons are most rife. In this post, I explore some of the reasons why such comparisons might be flawed and what we might do to move towards less fragile metrics.
- Field coordinator position: we are looking for a French speaker to help oversee surveys of informal firms in Benin. TOR and details.
- Field coordinator position: three positions for French speakers to work with the Africa Gender Innovation Lab on Youth Employment projects.
- Call for papers: the annual bank conference on Africa, to be held June 8-9 at Berkeley – submissions due Jan 31.
- On the FAI blog Tim Ogden discusses what we mean by savings when we talk about it as an outcome.
- A snapshot of the job market this year from 538 – what the next generation of economists is working on? Development is pretty popular, corporate finance and international economics not so much.
- Testing basic incomes: the Guardian reports on an experiment in India, where Unicef funded an unconditional basic income scheme. A “modified randomized control trial” (whatever that is) assigned everyone in 8 treatment villages to receive a monthly income for 18 months, with 12 control villages: “the basic incomes resulted in more economic activity and work. Conventional labour statistics would have picked that up inadequately. There was a big increase in secondary economic activities, as well as a shift from casual wage labour to own-account farming and small-scale business” Haven’t come across an academic paper with the results or more details.
Authored by Elizabeth Frankenberg, Duncan Thomas, and Jed Friedman
Ten years after the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Aceh provides an example of remarkable resilience and recovery that reflects the combination of individual ingenuity, family and community engagement and the impact of domestic and international aid. The tsunami devastated thousands of communities in countries bordering the Indian Ocean. Destruction was greatest in the Indonesian provinces of Aceh and North Sumatra, where an estimated 170,000 people perished and the built and natural environment was damaged along hundreds of kilometers of coastline. In response, the Indonesian government, donors, NGOs and individuals contributed roughly $7 billion in aid and the government established a high-level bureau based in Aceh to organize recovery work.
To shed light on how individuals, communities, and families were affected by and responded to the disaster in the short and medium term, we established the Study of the Tsunami Aftermath and Recovery (STAR). Beginning in 2005, STAR has followed over 30,000 people who were first enumerated in 2004 (pre-tsunami) in 487 communities (community location depicted in the figure below), as part of a population-representative household survey conducted by Statistics Indonesia. Interviews were conducted annually for 5 years after the tsunami; the ten-year follow-up is currently in the field. We ascertained survival status for 98% of the original pre-tsunami respondents and have interviewed 96% of survivors. The study is designed to provide information on the short-term costs and longer-term recovery for people in very badly damaged communities and in comparison communities where the disaster had little direct impact.