We use a randomized experiment to compare a workforce training program to cash transfers in Rwanda. Conducted in a sample of poor and underemployed youth, this study measures the impact of the training program not only relative to a control group but relative to the counterfactual of simply disbursing the cost of the program directly to beneficiaries. While the training program was successful in improving a number of core outcomes (productive hours, assets, savings, and subjective well-being), cost-equivalent cash transfers move all these outcomes as well as consumption, income, and wealth. In the head-to-head costing comparison cash proves superior across a number of economic outcomes, while training outperforms cash only in the production of business knowledge. We find little evidence of complementarity between human and physical capital interventions, and no signs of heterogeneity or spillover effects.
Are there any longitudinal studies similar to this where you look at the outcomes a few years down the road? I only read the abstract and it wasn't clear to me what the time period of this study...
Are there any longitudinal studies similar to this where you look at the outcomes a few years down the road? I only read the abstract and it wasn't clear to me what the time period of this study was. Since knowledge is "sticky" and cash is not; maybe the outcomes after 5-10 years would be different.
Cash is pretty sticky if you have enough of it. A part of it might evaporate each month on essentials like food, water, transportation, electricity and phone bills, but they are relatively cheap...
Cash is pretty sticky if you have enough of it. A part of it might evaporate each month on essentials like food, water, transportation, electricity and phone bills, but they are relatively cheap if you can secure other resources like housing*, a vehicle, quality clothing and tools†.
* Not having to pay for rent/a mortgage will make it exceptionally sticky, as it can easily get up to 60% of your income in some places.
† See: Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Having wealth to that degree is certainly more sticky than a smaller amounts. Not sure if that is was being tested in this study or if the cash amount is more modest.
Having wealth to that degree is certainly more sticky than a smaller amounts. Not sure if that is was being tested in this study or if the cash amount is more modest.
Here is the abstract from the study:
Are there any longitudinal studies similar to this where you look at the outcomes a few years down the road? I only read the abstract and it wasn't clear to me what the time period of this study was. Since knowledge is "sticky" and cash is not; maybe the outcomes after 5-10 years would be different.
Cash is pretty sticky if you have enough of it. A part of it might evaporate each month on essentials like food, water, transportation, electricity and phone bills, but they are relatively cheap if you can secure other resources like housing*, a vehicle, quality clothing and tools†.
* Not having to pay for rent/a mortgage will make it exceptionally sticky, as it can easily get up to 60% of your income in some places.
† See: Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Having wealth to that degree is certainly more sticky than a smaller amounts. Not sure if that is was being tested in this study or if the cash amount is more modest.
Not having cash when you need it can be pretty life-changing since it may involve things like eviction or losing your car.
According to the web page, this is after 18 months, and they’re going to do a followup survey at 36 months.