The power of Evidence (and

randomization)

Esther Duflo
Lecture 2-14/73
Finding out what works: power of social
experiments
Why so much focus on impact evaluation in this class?

• In this class, you will see many example of “randomized controlled

trials”

• Today we will discuss what this is, and why they are important
Let’s be concrete. What potential policies would help
increase participation in school?
Evaluating these policies
• Suppose that you are given full freedom to pick the best one
(or may be a combinations of the best ones) to scale up in
the entire country. You have some time, (let’s say 3 or 4
years) to come up with the best plan, and money to try
things out
• What questions to do you need to answer about each of
these policies to know whether to recommend them or not?
• For example if we chose the example of providing free
school meals to poor kids. What kinds of questions might you
want to ask to describe how such a program is going?
Evaluating school meals: the questions

• Are the school meals served regularly?

• Is there wastage?
• Do kids eat them?
• Are the kids better nourished?
• Are kids more likely to come to school now?
• Are the poor kids the ones who are really getting the meals?
• Do the kids learn more in school?
Organizing these questions

Needs
Assessment

Process Impact
Evaluation Evaluation
Needs Evaluation

• Who is the targeted population?

– All children? The poor ones?
– Why do we need to answer this question?

• What’s the nature of the problem

being solved?
– How will school meals solve it
– Why do we need to answer this question?

• How does the service fit the environment?

– Do teachers feel comfortable cooking?
Process Evaluation
• Are the services being delivered?
– Money is being spent
– School meals are delivered, children are eating them
• Are there ways of improving cost effectiveness?
– Substituting expensive inputs with less costly alternatives,
substituting costly inputs with labor, delivery methods
– Are children spending all day at school eating instead of
studying?
• Are the services reaching the right population?
– Schools with large absence problem
• Are the clients satisfied with service?
– Teachers’, students’ response to meals
Impact Evaluation

• Key question: Did school meals cause students to attend school more?
• Auxiliary questions:
– What was the effect on enrollment?
– What was the effect on attendance?
– What was the effect on learning?
– Did some types of people benefit more
than others?
• Students who were doing worse, poorer students, etc.
Why impact evaluation?

• Surprisingly little hard evidence on what

works, and evidence is often not based
on data analysis, more on general
impression.
• Central issue in the debate on aid
– Do we know that anything is working?
– How do we identify what works?
– Pick what really works
• Key ingredient to “Effective altruism”
(and good policy making)
• It is also how we learn what is important
in people’s lives and how they behave..
 Why is impact evaluation difficult?

• When we answer a process question, we need to describe what happened.

– This can be done from reading documents, interviewing people etc.

• To determine the impact of the program we need knowledge of counterfactuals,

that is, what would have happened in the absence of the program?

• Problem: The true counterfactual is not observable

– The fundamental problem of impact evaluation is thus a problem of missing
data
– We don’t know what would have happened in the absence of the program
(the counterfactual)

• The key goal of all program/impact evaluation methods is to construct or “mimic”

the counterfactual as best as possible.
We observe an outcome …

outcome

Y1 (Observed)

Y0
(Observed)

time
t=0 t=1
PROGRAM
We need to identify the counterfactual:
what would have happened in the absence of the
program
outcome

Y1 (Observed)

Y1c (Counterfactual)

Y0

time
t=0 t=1
We need to identify the counterfactual:
what would have happened in the absence of the
program
outcome

Y1 (Observed)

Impact: Y1 – Y1c

Y1c (Counterfactual)
(unobserve
d)

Y0

time
t=0 t=1
But the problem is…
• We will never have a child both with and without a school meal at the same time …
• So the counterfactual is not observed
• Solution:
– Use non-participants as point of comparison
= “Control” Group
– E.g.: use kids who did not
Simple Difference

outcom
e

Y1 (Observed among
beneficiaries)
Impact: Y1 – Y1c

Y1c (Observed in control group)

Y0

time
t=0 t=1
But still…a few problems

• If there are differences in background characteristics between the

group of participants and the non-participants
– E.g., if only kids who are very poor are offered a school lunch

è This will bias the comparison …

è This biased is called “selection bias”
Selection Bias
outcom
e

Control Group

Treatment Group
time
t=0 t=1
How to get rid of all possible selection biases?

• Random assignment of program to treatment and

control group
• This creates a comparison group that is not
systematically different from the participants
• i.e., one that is not subject to any selection bias
• Why?
Why does Random assignment work

• Because of the law of large numbers...

– Take 200 villages and randomly split them into two groups of 100
– The average participation
– Note: not true if you have only 10 villages to split into 2 groups
• Suppose 50% of a group of individuals are randomly `treated’ to a
program (without regard to their characteristics).
– If successfully randomized, individuals assigned to the treatment and
control groups differ only in their exposure to the treatment.
– Implies that the distribution of both observable and unobservable
characteristics in the treatment and control groups are statistically
identical.
• Any difference between treatment and control can be attributed
to the treatment
Participation in education

• Reducing the cost of education:

– Conditional Cash Transfers: PROGRESA in Mexico
• 3.4% increase in enrollment on average. Larger impact at the
secondary school levels.

– School Uniforms in Kenya

• School Uniforms distributed to 10,000 students in grade 6, and
then 7 in 163 randomly selected schools
• Drop out fell from 18% to 12% for girls, 13% to 9% for boys

• School meals
– Evaluation for Pre-schools in Kenya: participation was 30%
higher in schools were free breakfast was given
Participation in education

• School health
– Deworming in Kenya: 0.15 years of extra
education (25% increase in presence)
– Replicated in India (pre-school).
• Incentives for Students
– Girls scholarship program based on good
performance on tests scores in Kenya
• Informing parents about the returns to education
– Madagascar: increase participation
Cost Benefit Analysis

Needs Process Impact

Assessment Evaluation Evaluation

Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Evaluation and cost-benefit analysis
• Needs assessment gives you the metric for defining
the cost/benefit ratio

• Process evaluation gives you the costs of all the

inputs

• Impact evaluation gives you the quantified benefits

• Identifying alternatives allows for comparative cost

benefit
Cost benefit analysis

• Use the cost of the program to calculate how much it would have cost
you to do this program for X children (e.g. 1000).
• Then use the program impact to calculate how many extra year of
education you got for this 1000 children, thanks to the program.
• Deworming example:
– Cost per child: 0.5 dollars per year
– Increase in year of education: 0.15 years

• Deworming cost 3 dollars per This is

different from the usual price per program that the so called “rating
agencies” give you for NGOs, because now the price is put in
perspective with the benefits.
From Evidence to Policy: The long journey
 Run a small, well controlled experiment

Get the results

The strawman
Prepare a shiny policy brief and peddle to policy makers

Get full scale adoption

 Run a small, well controlled experiment
“Gold plated experiments”–samples are too small

Get the results

Results only valid in one place, might not replicate elsewhere;
The strawman might not even be internally valid (imperfect take up, spillovers
on non beneficiaries)
subject to all
sorts of critics Prepare a shiny policy brief and peddle to policy makers
May not fit with the policy makers interest at the time

Get full scale adoption

Results will be quite different if adopted at scale: equilibrium
effects, Political economy effects
But really, it is not the way policy influence works
 The Miracle of Microcredit?

Photo: Kanto | [Link]

Microcredit in the 2000s

The Nobel Peace Prize 2006

Muhammad Yunus, Gameen Bank

Today, Grameen Bank gives loans to nearly 7.0 million poor people,
97 percent of whom are women in 73,000 villages in Bangladesh.
Grameen Bank gives collateral-free income generating, housing,
student and micro-enterprise loans to poor families and offers a
host of attractive savings, pension funds and insurance products
for its members. Since it introduced them in 1984, housing loans
have been used to construct 640,000 houses. The legal ownership
of these houses belongs to the women themselves. We focused on
women because we found giving loans to women always brought
more benefits to the family.

In a cumulative way the bank has given out loans totaling about US
$6.0 billion. The repayment rate is 99%. Grameen Bank routinely
makes profit. Financially, it is self-reliant and has not taken donor
money since 1995. Deposits and own resources of Grameen Bank
today amount to 143 percent of all outstanding loans. According to
Grameen Bank’s internal survey, 58 percent of our borrowers have
crossed the poverty line.
Then the tone shifted…
The evaluations

• The first evaluations conducted where

in India and in the Philippines.
– Philippines: rather good
– India: rather weak

• India is a very unique context:

hotbed of microfinance
• To get a useful answer, we had to wait…
• Until seven studies came out together,
all in different contexts and carried out
by different teams
• But published together with the Photo: [Link]

same outcomes.
Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling of all the MF results:
Profits

Posterior mean, 50%

interval (box), and 95%
interval (line) for each
Treatment Effect (USD
PPP per 2 weeks)

Rachel Meager
LSE
Meta-analysis: Average estimated effect and range,
6 countries
Posterior distribution of average effect

Posterior mean, 50%

interval (box), and 95%
interval (line) for each
Treatment Effect (USD
PPP per 2 weeks)
Changing the debate
Changing microfinance

• One sized approach (small term loan) does not work for all.
• Many experiments since then have focused on the terms of lending.
• Focus on all the financial services the poor need, and the right fit for each
– Transaction
– Savings
– Insurance
– Ultra poor programs

• Focus on heterogeneity: Creating methods to identify real entrepreneurs who

will benefit from a microcredit.
• Interplay between theory and experiments is what makes economics useful to
policy (and policy useful to economics)
 Teaching at the right level

Photo: Arvind Eyunni | Pratham

% Children in Std V who can at least
read at Std II level
All India (rural) – All Children
ASER 2011 to 2016
 What is the problem?

• Teachers can teach • Children can learn

• Salaries are sufficient • Inputs alone don’t help

• Computers can help • Teachers are willing

to do better
• Parents care

Photo: Aude Guerrucci | J-PAL

Dr. Rukmini Banerji Dr. Mdhav Chavan
 For 15+ years of experimentation
2001-2003 2010-2013
“Balsakhi” program; Pratham Ghana trials of teacher-
community volunteer “pull out” led vs. tutor-led in school
remedial program in urban schools 2008 and out of school 2013-2014
In-school one month “Learning Camps” in
gov’t teacher-led gov’t primary schools;
summer camp with led by Pratham teams
support by rural supported by village
village volunteers volunteers

2000 2005 2010 2015

2005-2006 2008-2010 2012-2013
Village volunteers In-school gov’t teacher- Teacher-led model;
conducted community led learning improvement onsite mentoring by
classes for rural primary program & support by gov’t academic officials
school children Pratham volunteers (rural)
Teaching at the right level today
Improving programs that run at scale

Helping government address

the “plumbing problems”
 Evaluating programs at scale:
Targeted information to improve rice distribution

Photo: Hector Salazar Salame | J-PAL

Raskin Social Assistance ID Cards

• Raskin is Indonesia’s US$2.2 billion rice

subsidy program for poorest families

• Problem:
– Poor receive just 30% of the
intended subsidy
– Pay 25% more for Raskin

Photo: J-PAL
Experimental design

The experiment varied 4 aspects of the cards

– Information on the cards
– Who gets the card
– Common knowledge through posters
– Create impression of accountability

Researchers:

Abhijit Banerjee Rema Hanna Jordan Kyle Benjamin A. Olken Sudarno Sumarto
Results
Banerjee, Hanna, Kyle, Olken, Sumarto

• Poor families get 26% increase

in subsidy

• Driven by reduction in leakage

• Cost Effective: $1 for ~$8 increase

in subsidy

Photo: Ben Olken | J-PAL

Scale-up

• Government rolled out “social

protection” cards in 2013 to 15.5
million poor families, reaching 66
million people

• Continued partnership to improve

service delivery, with planned
evaluations of a new reformed social
benefit scheme to be implemented
through electronic vouchers

Photo: Ritwik Sarkar | J-PAL

 Reforming the auditing of firms in Gujarat

Photo: J-PAL
 Third party audit

Photos: Vipin Awatramani | J-PAL

 What audits say…

Suspended particulate matter, mg/Nm3 | A. Control, Midline

20
Mass: 0.7297
Percent

10

0
100 200 300 400
Vs reality
Suspended particulate matter, mg/Nm3 | A. Control, Midline
20
Mass: 0.7297
Percent

10

0
100 200 300 400

Backchecks
20
Mass: 0.1892
Percent

10

0
100 200 300 400
The reform we proposed
Duflo, Greenstone, Pande, Ryan

1. Random assignment of auditors and fixed payments from a central pool

2. Back check auditors for accuracy

3. Payment (or continuation with the scheme) based on accuracy

– Ideas based on basic economics, and a solid understanding of the institutions

Researchers:

Esther Duflo Michael Greenstone Rohini Pande Nicholas Ryan

Impact of the reform
Fostering a culture of learning inside Governments

• Many governments have launched either long run partnership

with J-PAL or their own “learning units” (e.g. Minedulab in Peru,
Tamil Nadu research partnership).

• World Bank Supports hundreds of RCT and training with

various governments

• Many of the governments we meet want us to run an RCT,

rather than listen to any evidence we might bring.

• May be one day we can make ourselves irrelevant…