Hide table of contents

In our main program, GiveDirectly gives those who don’t already have a mobile phone the option to buy one, subtracting the ~$15 cost from their first transfer, an offer taken by 90% of recipients. Your donations then go directly to the SIM card in their phone, a technology called mobile money. 

The primary benefits of direct cash – improved earnings, health, education, etc. – may obscure a secondary benefit of our work: connecting people to a mobile network. Below we lay out what the evidence shows impact and how we specifically extend impact.

Access to mobile money and phones has distinct benefits

large analysis found mobile money access alone (without cash grants or other aid) has lifted 194K or 2% of Kenyan households out of extreme poverty by increased savings, resilience, and access to better business opportunities. Other research finds mobile money usage can help African families be more resilient to economic shocksaccess healthcare more often, and have more social closeness and lending reciprocity than similar households without mobile money.

Even without access to mobile money, simply owning a phone improves resilience and earnings by reducing travel costs and increasing social connection. Phone ownership also allows for innovative responses to shocks and disasters. During COVID-19 lockdowns, the government of Togo targeted and sent cash aid fully remotely, taking advantage of the fact that some 90% of their citizens already owned a phone. Health officials in low income countries have harnessed phone data to track disease outbreaks.

GiveDirectly overcomes structural obstacles to bring mobile access

We issue mobile phones and free SIM cards to households that need one. Our staff walk recipients through how to use this new technology, guiding them to set their unique PIN and check their balance. We also sensitize them to fraud risks and inform them what fees they should expect when they visit an agent to cash out. A government ID is required to register for mobile money, so in some cases we coordinate with local governments to hold ID-issuing campaigns ahead of our enrollment. 

But even with phones, many villages will still struggle to access the benefits of mobile devices due to other structural hurdles. Here are some solutions we implemented to help:

We bring cell network where it never reached before. 16% of Africans do not live within reach of a mobile network, with the biggest gaps in the poorest regions due to a lack of demand – telcos only build towers where they believe they’ll have customers. However, when GiveDirectly starts a project, we’re creating thousands of new subscribers. Our project reaching 15K families in Kiryandongo, Uganda motivated two telcos (MTN & Airtel) to extend coverage and mobile money agents to the area. In Maryland, Liberia, where we’ve enrolled 11.5K households in our basic income program, we co-financed 10 new cell towers with local telco MTN, bringing cell coverage for the first time to over 2,400 adults across 21 villages (see video below). 

We get cash to remote communities. Over 75% of recipients choose to cash out rather than keeping their transfers in their mobile money account, as many rural merchants only accept cash. In some rural areas, banks and agents do not have enough cash on hand for hundreds of families to withdraw large amounts in a matter of days. GiveDirectly collaborates with national banks and mobile money operators to ensure sufficient liquidity in the regions where payments are about to go out. In some of the most remote areas, we arrange for mobile money agents to travel to village centers to cash out recipients.

The final challenge of charging phones without an electric grid is solved by recipients themselves. When dozens of their neighbors get phones at once, an enterprising person often invests in a solar panel and battery to offer a charging station at ~$0.20 per charge which can last up to a week.

More can be done to reduce barriers to connectivity

While cash transfer NGOs extend access to hundreds of thousands that lack phones or mobile money access, there are structural issues larger than our programs can overcome. 

  • Mobile network coverage and usage is limited in the poorest areas. Coverage rates are particularly bad in Central Africa, where over a third of adults are not reached by network – worrying given this region is home to 215M people in extreme poverty. Cash transfer NGOs alone will not incentivize enough network expansion to address this, but focused private and philanthropic infrastructure investment could, as Open Philanthropy argues.
  • Vulnerable populations may be ineligible for mobile money. Some countries do not allow refugees the requisite ID card needed to register for SIM cards and mobile money. In Kenya, home to over half a million refugees, we had to instead open formal bank accounts for urban refugees due to mobile money restrictions, an approach that would not work in rural settings.
  • Giving smartphones might increase impact, but isn’t cost-effective. Some research suggests that giving people smartphones could help them more than giving them simple phones. However, the cost is significantly higher ($93 vs. $14), which could mean the gains are outweighed by the expense. Furthermore, in a GiveDirectly pilot giving smartphones to over 1,000 Kenyan youths in an informal settlement, half of the phones had been lost, stolen, or damaged two years later. And even for those who retained them, continued usage was difficult as 1GB of data costs 8% of the average monthly income in sub-Saharan Africa, the highest rate in the world.
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Nice article and the analysis - mostly really matches up with my experience, especially that mobile money usage can increase healthcare access as we've seen that in our facilities with mobile money available close by.

 Our small OneDay Health survey in remote places showed that out of 170 households surveyed, only one didn't have at lest 1 active cellphone within the famliy unit. Obviously many (maybe even the majority) of members within that family wouldn't have a cellphone, but I would imagine this comment..

 "GiveDirectly gives those who don’t already have a mobile phone the option to buy one, subtracting the ~$15 cost from their first transfer, an offer taken by 90% of recipients"

...doesn't necessarily mean that 90% of recipients don't have cellphones (many of them would have had one already), but more that they were willing to spend that $15 they hadn't received yet on a cellphone? Not sure about this though. Or does that 90% figure only include those who don't have a cellphone already?

We also gave 15 nurses smartphones once as a trial, and over half of them were broken or lost within a year - to be honest I'm impressed that half of them were still there after 2 years time! I also wanted to read that article but your link didn't work it would be great if you could fix that!

Thanks, very interesting insights re: healthcare access (you'd enjoy this pod with our research director who is a former medical doctor). The ~$15 is at market value for a phone, so the incentive isn't especially appealing. That said, sometimes other members of a household will have a phone but the assigned recipient does not so elects to buy one.

Here's the link in question: https://www.fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/YEG-Brochure-29.10.21.pdf 

This is super interesting! Somehow I wasn’t aware that GiveDirectly helped people get mobile phones too!

Fwiw, the 50% loss rate isn't that different from the Roessler paper, which still found effects in spite of the losses/sales/breakage (see pg. 9).

"As expected, by endline self-reported phone ownership in the treatment conditions far outpaced control (72% in the pooled phone conditions to 27%) but also revealing the attenuating effects of handset turnover. Pinning down the exact mechanisms that account for handset loss among those in the phone groups is challenging because of survey demand effects.11 We could, however, verify whether participants had the program handset on their person during the endline survey: while 50.7% of those in the basic group still had the basic handset, only 34.2% in the smartphone group did. Below we refer to subjects displaying the project phone at endline as compliers."

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe