What Development Interventions Work? What Development Interventions Work? The long-term impact and cost effectiveness The long-term impact and cost effectiveness of anti-poverty interventions in Bangladeshof anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh

Introduction and purpose of researchIntroduction and purpose of research

Agnes R. QuisumbingAgnes R. QuisumbingIFPRIIFPRI

Data Analysis and Technical Assistance Ltd

Purpose of Workshop

To obtain input from stakeholders to guide the To obtain input from stakeholders to guide the implementation of a new research project on the implementation of a new research project on the long-term impact of anti-poverty interventions in long-term impact of anti-poverty interventions in BangladeshBangladesh

Project is funded by the Department for Project is funded by the Department for International Development (DfID) and the International Development (DfID) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Project builds on an ongoing longitudinal study Project builds on an ongoing longitudinal study of the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, DATA, of the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, DATA, and IFPRIand IFPRI

What we want from this workshop: What we want from this workshop: Implications for research and actionImplications for research and action

1.1. What are the key issues identified by What are the key issues identified by stakeholders (you) and their implications of the stakeholders (you) and their implications of the workshop on how we run the research project? workshop on how we run the research project?

2.2. What are the more general implications of the What are the more general implications of the research on anti-poverty interventions in research on anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh, and elsewhere?Bangladesh, and elsewhere?

Overview

Objectives and approach of the present study—Objectives and approach of the present study—this presentationthis presentation

The CPRC-DATA-IFPRI longitudinal study: The CPRC-DATA-IFPRI longitudinal study: Preliminary results—Bob BaulchPreliminary results—Bob Baulch

Policy processes and cost-effectiveness—Akhter Policy processes and cost-effectiveness—Akhter AhmedAhmed

Stakeholder roundtableStakeholder roundtable

Breakout groupsBreakout groups

Report back and plenaryReport back and plenary

Introduction

Bangladesh → impressive reductions in poverty Bangladesh → impressive reductions in poverty in the last decadein the last decade

Population living in poverty: fell from 51% in Population living in poverty: fell from 51% in 1995 to 40% in 2005 (BBS 2006)1995 to 40% in 2005 (BBS 2006)

Substantial improvements in non-monetary Substantial improvements in non-monetary indicators of the poorest (Sen and Hulme, indicators of the poorest (Sen and Hulme, 2006).2006).

However, more than 50 million people still live in However, more than 50 million people still live in extreme poverty (BBS, 2006)extreme poverty (BBS, 2006)

Reducing poverty—and lifting the extreme poor Reducing poverty—and lifting the extreme poor out of poverty—remains a major development out of poverty—remains a major development challengechallenge

Government and NGOs in Bangladesh have Government and NGOs in Bangladesh have undertaken many important interventions undertaken many important interventions designed to help individuals and households designed to help individuals and households escape poverty, many of these targeted to escape poverty, many of these targeted to women. women.

While many evaluations have attempted to While many evaluations have attempted to assess their short-term effectiveness, relatively assess their short-term effectiveness, relatively little is known about their long-term impact or little is known about their long-term impact or their relative cost-effectiveness. their relative cost-effectiveness.

Introduction

This project attempts to address this gap:

It aims to: It aims to:

1.1. estimate the estimate the long-termlong-term impact of 3 antipoverty impact of 3 antipoverty interventions on a range of monetary and non-interventions on a range of monetary and non-monetary measures of well-beingmonetary measures of well-being

2.2. compare the cost-effectiveness of these compare the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in attaining their poverty-reduction and interventions in attaining their poverty-reduction and other development objectives. other development objectives.

Background of the study

This study builds on a recent longitudinal data set collected by CPRC-DATA-IFPRI, building on evaluations conducted by IFPRI and DATA of 3 interventions

1. Microfinance (MFI) from 1994

2. Agricultural Technology (AT) from 1996

3. Educational Transfers (ET) from 2000

• Results from these earlier evaluations can be found in handouts on the table outside

Map of theStudy Sites

Treatment and control groups of the 3 interventions as of baseline round

Intervention Treatment Control

Microfinance (1994) Participants in microfinance NGOs in 7 villages

Nonparticipants in microfinance NGOs in all villages (eligible nonparticipants)

Agricultural technology (1996)

Households in villages where agricultural technologies disseminated

Households in villages where agricultural technologies not yet disseminated

Educational transfers (food/cash for education) (2000)

Households in FFE unions

Households in non-FFE unions

For example, vegetable technologies were initially not disseminated to a village where pottery was

the major industry

Treatment village Control village

Casual observation suggests that there have been many changes over the past decade…

And some individuals/households have clearly been able to move out of poverty, and others, not.

There have also been some more subtle changes…

Examining long-term impacts

Resurvey allows us to look at differences between treatment and control groups over time

• in this case, 6-12 years

Evaluation methodologies have improved

Quantitative and qualitative techniques are combined in this study

• Main quantitative techniques: propensity score matching and panel data analysis using household survey data

• Main qualitative techniques: reanalysis of FGDs and life histories

Impact Assessment Methodology

Evaluating impacts of each program on various outcomes (e.g., per capita consumption, food consumption, assets, schooling, nutritional status, etc.)

Construct a counterfactual measure: What would outcomes have been without the program?

• Requires “control group” - a group that that differs from participant group ONLY in that they don’t participate

Impact Assessment Methodology

Control Groups• Original studies had well defined control groups

• In this project, “Propensity Score Matching (PSM)" is used to match program participants with nonparticipating-control group

• PSM technique

1. probability of participation in a program for each household, based on observable characteristics

2. statistical comparison group → participants matched to nonparticipants with similar values of propensity scores. 

3. compare change in outcomes over time for these 2 groups; i.e., “difference in difference” analysis

Stakeholder roundtablePlease discuss any of the 4 questions (5 minutes only)

1.What current policy issues in Bangladesh should feed into the research?

2.What questions does the team need to address for the research to be relevant?

3.What information can the research generate that you will find useful?

4.What do you need to know so that you can do what you are doing better?

Guidelines for break-out groups

Split up into 4 groups Choose a note-taker and rapporteur Questions for groups

1.What are the most important research, policy, and implementation issues identified by the round table?

2.What additional issues should the research consider?

Report back in 30 minutes