Thursday, July 23, 2020

Randomised Control Trials and the Alleviation of Poverty in India

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Sattva Vasavada

Article Title

Randomised Control Trials and the Alleviation of Poverty in India

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 23, 2020

URL

Poverty in India — A Representative Image

Poverty in India — A Representative Image | Source: Atul Kumar via Unsplash

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics for their “experimental approach in alleviating global poverty”. Their experimental approach encompassed a variety of novel methods to understand and analyse interventions and Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). Their research has been used by policy makers to make informed policy decisions to best help the marginalised.

What are RCTs?

To understand the effect of a policy, intervention, or medicine, decision makers try to measure the efficacy of the treatment. Do deworming pills given to children improve test scores? Does providing chlorinated water improve the health and economic outcomes of villages? These are some causal (read causal, i.e. caused by, not casual) questions researchers are interested in. The best way to analyse causal effects is to randomise the selection of people in the treatment and the control group (for example: children who are given deworming pills versus children who are not given the pills). This random selection of the two groups removes many statistical biases that might affect the results.

RCTs in India:

Many of the RCTs performed by Banerjee and Duflo were in India. They involved short- and long-term impact assessments of various interventions, policies, models, and treatments. We look at a few RCTs implemented in India:

Teacher absenteeism rates:

Troubled by the low attendance rates (or high absence rates) of public-school teachers in India, Duflo assessed the impact of financial incentives on the absence rates of teachers in Rajasthan. The study monitored teacher attendance by cameras, which was tied to a financial incentive if the attendance was high. From a baseline absence rate of 44%, teacher absenteeism in the treatment group fell by 21%, relative to the control group. High teacher attendance caused child test scores to improve too.

COVID-19 and health-seeking behaviour:

In the context of COVID-19, Banerjee tested the effect of sending messages via SMS that promoted health preserving behaviour. The results were very positive. By sending a short, 2.5-minute clip to 25 million randomly selected individuals in West Bengal, the intervention i) found a two-fold increase in symptom reporting to village health workers, ii) increased hand washing rates by 7%, and iii) increased mask-wearing by 2%. While mask-wearing rates increased only marginally, the spillover effects (wearing a mask stops the virus from infecting more people) were moderately high and positive.

Asset Transfers and the Notion of Poverty:

An RCT by Banerjee in West Bengal involving a productive asset transfer accompanied with training found large and persistent effects on monthly consumption and other variables. The treatment group reported 25% higher consumption levels relative to the control group, who did not receive the asset transfer and training. Implications of such RCTs are huge. The notion that the poor are lazy and unwilling to perform strenuous labour is falsified by this RCT. Often, what the poor lack are opportunities that are hard to come by, given their financial status. A small nudge, like the asset transfer, can cause large and positive effects on their well-being.  

Salt fortification to reduce anaemia:

RCTs also help rule out less cost-effective interventions. Duflo and Banerjee evaluated an RCT which distributed fortified salt in 400 villages of Bihar, to reduce the prevalence of anaemia. However, this intervention found no statistically significant impact on health outcomes like anaemia, hemoglobin, etc.  Thus, while RCTs help introduce novel methods of impacting the lives of the poor, they also help in ruling out in-effective measures. A policy maker might try other alternatives to reduce the prevalence of anaemia.

Are RCTs the gold standard?

Maybe. Extrapolating results from a regional RCT to national policies could present problems. Contextuality matters. A study that indicates positive gains for one region might present different, and rather adverse effects for another region. Nation wide effects might not be as prominent as regional results of a single RCT. The good part is that Banerjee and Duflo have a solution. Just perform more RCTs!

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:36 PM

How Iceland Beat the Pandemic Without Imposing a Lockdown

Like the rest of the world, Iceland also has to face the COVID-19 situation. This European country of approximately 3.5 lakh population registered the first case of COVID-19 virus on the 1st March 2020 and the number of the infected hit a peak on the 5th May 2020. The active cases declining afterwards and on 24th of May there were only three active cases. Iceland’s response to COVID-19 has been widely lauded.

The country’s small population enabled extensive testing; instead of simply testing symptomatic or exposed people, also tested the general population. Along with the Icelandic health authorities, deCode Genetics, which is an organization committed to mapping and understanding the human genome, undertook the task of testing the general and non-symptomatic population for free. Consequently, Iceland has tested a higher portion of inhabitants than any other country, making it easier to trace how the infection spreads. There has been no lockdown imposed; however, the government has been taking measures to spread awareness for voluntary self-quarantine measures. The government also banned gatherings of more than 20 people on 24th of March which was relaxed to 200 from 25th of May.

The strategy followed by the government of Iceland was based on robust testing, contact tracing of infections, social distancing, increasing public’s awareness of hand-sanitation and voluntary self-quarantine, along with strict measures in healthcare institutions. Through effective contact tracing the healthcare workers were able to reach out to people who came in contact with COVID-19 infected people and recommend them to self-quarantine.

The government was very open in communicating with the citizens on the status of COVID-19 situation in the country. Half an hour long daily briefing on Iceland’s local response to the pandemic was relayed on the public’s screens for the past months until the 25th of May. The briefings were led by Þórólfur Guðnason, Alma Möller and Víðir Reynisson who are the Chief Epidemiologist, Director of Health and Director of Iceland’s Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management respectively.

Iceland has shown that robust testing regime, contact tracing, and clear communication to the public can be very effective in controlling the COVID-19 before it could turn into a pandemic.

Read More