Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
Peter Wildeford1
0
0

Some potential concerns I can think of:

The interaction effect between cash transfer and the program is important but very unclear. One would think that if the program is more cost-effective than the transfer, then you should just do the program. And if the transfer is more cost-effective than the program, then you should just do the transfer. So there must be some reason for combining the two for it to make sense to do both. Does giving cash boost participation rates? ...Probably yes, but enough to still be more cost-effective?

The interaction could require a worse program and/or a worse transfer. Along similar lines, if you're pairing a program with a transfer, it's possible that the program that pairs best does not actually outperform just doing the best program with no transfer. Also, it's possible that the particular program you pick may require you to make transfers to people other than those that would be the most helped by an unconditional transfer.

Combining a program with a transfer compounds the benefits of the program and transfers, but also compounds their risks. You get all the potential risks of the program plus the risks of the transfers (e.g., making other people in the village envious).

Conditional transfers may perform significantly differently than non-conditional transfers. Do people feel less happy because they're not receiving a surprise windfall? Is jealously from other villagers reduced because the money seems earned? Do recipients spend their money less wisely because they feel that they rightfully earned it and that they're not being monitored?

Cash transfers may require large regulatory and logistic hurdles that slow down an otherwise implementable program. Also, the costs of doing the program may slow down an otherwise implementable transfer scheme. And the logistic hurdles of trying to do both a program and a transfer may be really hard.

Reply
See in context
by kierangreig🔸
1 min read 7

8

Frontpage

Preliminary Charity Entrepreneurship research suggests the counterfactual impact of a conditional cash transfer charity may be larger than that of a number of other intervention areas we’re considering from GiveWell’s priority program list.

At this preliminary stage some ideas we have heard of include cash transfers conditional upon:

  • Up to date child immunizations.

  • Malnourished children receiving vitamin A supplementation.

  • Performance of healthcare workers.

  • Malnourished pregnant females receiving folic acid supplementation.

  • Participation in ultra poor graduation programs.

  • Participation in data collection programs.

 

Whilst all feedback has some value and is appreciated, feedback that may have a greater influence shaping our research would make us consider:

  • Possible flaws with conditional cash transfers.

  • Possible flaws in the ideas that we have heard of or reasons to think some of these ideas have a lot more potential than others.

  • Other conditions a conditional cash transfer charity could base itself upon that seem particularly good from an EA perspective.

 

Thanks for your feedback :)

8

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
scottweathers3
0
0

Why would CCTs have a larger counterfactual impact than other interventions? This seems like an important point to make explicit, both for you and for everybody else.

I second @Telofy's point - I'm sure there are plenty of drawbacks to CCTs over other programs, but this seems like a question best addressed by a specialist. My gut says that administering the costs & monitoring the behavior you're promoting in a CCT program (depending on what that is) may cost more than simply giving out vaccines, vitamin-A supplements, etc. It also seems like there are more ways to mess up a CCT intervention than a simple direct service intervention. HOWEVER, all of this is bracketed with a huge disclaimer: just go talk to an expert who knows more.

I'd add "graduating additional grades" to the list of potential conditions.

Reply
kierangreig🔸3
0
0

Why would CCTs have a larger counterfactual impact than other interventions? This seems like an important point to make explicit, both for you and for everybody else.

Without going too in depth some of the reasons we think this are:

  • The field is relatively uncrowded.

  • A conditional cash transfer charity has relatively high potential scalability.

  • There appear to be a number of relatively evidence-based and cost-effective conditions that a conditional cash transfer charity could base itself upon.

  • A conditional cash transfer charity seems like it would be able to update on new information at a faster rate and to a greater extent than charities based on most other intervention areas.

This wasn’t included in the original post was because we felt a shorter post would be able to generate useful feedback.

My gut says that administering the costs & monitoring the behavior you're promoting in a CCT program (depending on what that is) may cost more than simply giving out vaccines, vitamin-A supplements, etc.

Your gut could be right :). My understanding is that in some areas the demand for some health interventions may be lagging behind the supply of those health interventions. For instance, this article and this article suggest major reasons for partial or no immunization in India are demand side. In those circumstances it’s plausible that conditional cash transfers could be a very cost-effective intervention and perhaps more cost-effective than supplying vaccines or micronutrients.

It also seems like there are more ways to mess up a CCT intervention than a simple direct service intervention.”

This could be true. At the moment we aren’t highly confident in our understanding of the relative logistical difficulty of different interventions. A consideration like this may make us update away from conditional cash transfers in future.

“HOWEVER, all of this is bracketed with a huge disclaimer: just go talk to an expert who knows more.”

Okay will do :)

I'd add "graduating additional grades" to the list of potential conditions.”

Sure. That’s something we will consider although we are unsure what the returns to schooling in low income countries are. For instance, the 2009 GiveWell Developing-world education (in-depth review) observes that there is little reliable information regarding the true relationship between schooling and later-life outcomes such as income.

Reply
scottweathers2
0
0

This all sounds great! I can see your reasoning on why CCTs might have a larger counterfactual impact. Your 3rd and 4th bullet appear quite strong to me - CCTs give you flexibility that other interventions wouldn't.

The demand/supply question is an important one. Like a lot of these questions, however, demand/supply will probably come down to the specific communities you decide to work in, which makes it hard to predict at the outset.

Thanks, Kieran!

Reply
jayd2
0
0

Do you have any of your research to date on this written up in a form that you can share and people can comment on?

Reply
kierangreig🔸2
0
0

Not at the moment. We’re currently near the beginning of a shallow review of conditional cash transfers and we haven’t wrote our research up in a form that people can comment on because we have found this process to be really time consuming. We also feel that some of the best feedback may be gathered early on in the research process by less time consuming posts like this as well as direct conversations/ email exchanges with specialists.

Ideally, in the future we will have important aspects of research written up in a form that people can comment on but at this stage it isn’t clear if that will include research on conditional cash transfers.

Reply
Dawn Drescher3
0
0

Good. I think the dearth of feedback here is due to there being few people here that are experts in conditional cash transfers to the point that they’re confident that they know things about the topic that you haven’t thought of without knowing what you have already thought of. The conversations with specialists you mention will hopefully be more efficient.

I’m greatly looking forward to reading your findings once they’re sufficiently advanced to warrant a write-up.

Reply
Peter Wildeford1
0
0

Some potential concerns I can think of:

The interaction effect between cash transfer and the program is important but very unclear. One would think that if the program is more cost-effective than the transfer, then you should just do the program. And if the transfer is more cost-effective than the program, then you should just do the transfer. So there must be some reason for combining the two for it to make sense to do both. Does giving cash boost participation rates? ...Probably yes, but enough to still be more cost-effective?

The interaction could require a worse program and/or a worse transfer. Along similar lines, if you're pairing a program with a transfer, it's possible that the program that pairs best does not actually outperform just doing the best program with no transfer. Also, it's possible that the particular program you pick may require you to make transfers to people other than those that would be the most helped by an unconditional transfer.

Combining a program with a transfer compounds the benefits of the program and transfers, but also compounds their risks. You get all the potential risks of the program plus the risks of the transfers (e.g., making other people in the village envious).

Conditional transfers may perform significantly differently than non-conditional transfers. Do people feel less happy because they're not receiving a surprise windfall? Is jealously from other villagers reduced because the money seems earned? Do recipients spend their money less wisely because they feel that they rightfully earned it and that they're not being monitored?

Cash transfers may require large regulatory and logistic hurdles that slow down an otherwise implementable program. Also, the costs of doing the program may slow down an otherwise implementable transfer scheme. And the logistic hurdles of trying to do both a program and a transfer may be really hard.

Reply
More from kierangreig🔸
134
Animal Welfare Fund: Payout recommendations from May 2022 to March 2024
5 authors
· · 29m read
11
11
162
The EA Animal Welfare Fund (Once Again) Has Significant Room For More Funding
4 authors
· · 5m read
13
13
54
Navigating Uncertainty: How Rethink Priorities Can Help With Impact
2 authors
· · 8m read
1
1
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Relevant opportunities
48
World Malaria Day 2025: what's new, what's not
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
2
2
7
80,000 Hours is hiring for an Engagement Specialist
2 authors
· · 7m read
3
3
46
Open Phil's Farm Animal Welfare team is hiring a Program Assistant!
LewisBollard
· · 2m read
0
0
View more