Editor's Note: You're not hallucinating, experiencing a weird time warp or flashback. But maybe I am.
- Tim Ogden
1. What the hell?
Yes, this is a new faiV, for the first time since [checks notes; checks notes again; checks calendar on current date; checks calendar on current date and year; hangs head in shame and disbelief] June, 2021. So, you (and I) could hardly be blamed for asking "What the hell happened?" The answer is complicated but mostly prosaic: my time has been focused on a seven-country financial diaries study, and three or four other field work projects that we've been running or participating in. But it's also that the world that the faiV existed in and was a part of has changed a lot. Here I don't mean the pandemic etc., at least not directly. I mean that the world of information creation and sharing has changed dramatically. As we contemplated reviving the faiV at various times in 2022 and 2023, we kept running into barriers like: what platform should we be using? What's getting through email filters now? How do we gather the information to write a faiV? Where are people posting now?
Viewing all posts with tag: Remittances
Week of September 14th, 2020
Editor's Note: Of particular note, this Tuesday (September 15th) at 10am Eastern there is a special edition of faiVLive in Spanish covering Digital Financial Services in Latin America. I'll be hosting with Gabriela Zapata moderating, and Kiki DelValle, Barbara Magnoni, and Xavier Faz will be joining us. Register here.
I apologize in advance if the final links on resilience undermine your resilience at the beginning of the week.
–Tim Ogden
Read MoreWeek of August 21st, 2020
Editor's Note: I feel like the typical "everyone is gone in August" thing hasn't been happening this year, but there is so much that's different that I can't really tell. And while I took some time off in July, and even went somewhere, it didn't feel like a vacation since there was still so much effort needed figuring out what the boys and I could do in a time of distancing and lockdowns. I hope you have had some time mentally away, but you know, not all of your time mentally away.
--Tim Ogden
Week of October 18, 2019
1. Nobel Prizes: It's a little weird writing about the Nobel going to Banerjee, Duflo and Kremer in the faiV--this is mostly stuff we cover all the time, and it's probably not news at this point to anyone who cares. So it's not entirely clear what to write. But here goes.
First, I have to point out that 1 in 5 people I interviewed for my book have gone on to win a Nobel. So any of you who aspire to future laureate status should probably make time for me (Yes, I'm talking to you Sendhil). All I'm saying is that both an event study or an RDD would show strong indications of causality. Given that my ability to predict the winner of the prize also is remarkable, wouldn't you say now is a great time to recommend subscribing to the faiV to all of your friends?
More seriously, I suppose I should link to some of the responses. From the "pro" camp here's Karthik Muralidharan and here's Pam Jakiela who notes that Esther is the first woman with an economics Ph.D. to win (Elinor Ostrom's Ph.D was in political science) while also noting the quite different family structure of this set of winners in comparison to many in the past (though not, it should be noted, the other Nobelist who won after appearing in my book, Angus Deaton). Here's Tim Harford, who unusually, quickly shifts the focus to Kremer's O-ring theory. On the more neutral side, here's Maitreesh Ghatak.
There's a critical side as well. For example, here's Duvendack, Jolly, Mader and Morvant-Roux on how the prize reveals the "poverty of economics." And here's Grieve Chelwa and Sean Muller with "the poverty of poor economics." I have serious issues with both of these. The Duvendack et al. piece seems to intimate that Esther and Abhijit were pro-microcredit and tried to rescue the sectors reputation from their unexpected results. That is just bizarre--the title of their paper "The Miracle of Microfinance" could be better described as an intemperate twisting of the knife; that's certainly how the microfinance industry felt. Chelwa and Muller accuse the randomistas of "imitating" science but not doing it--which can only mean they are paying very little attention to what happens in other domains of science. Here's a Twitter thread of response to Chelwa and Muller from Oyebola Okunogbe. As Okunogbe points out while pushing back, each of the essays make some good and reasonable points, which is part of what makes the critiques of the RCT movement so maddening: the blending of good points with silly ones blunts the impact of the critics, in my opinion.
Now if you're interested in a long and more balanced, but still critical (in the better, broader sense) take, here's Kevin Bryan's overview at A Fine Theorem.
The next big question for me is what comes next for the RCT movement and it's critics. There are several possible futures. One is that the prize permanently solidifies the value of RCT movement and allows more constructive engagement by proponents with critics since the randomistas no longer have to worry about an existential threat to their work and legacy. Another is that the critics will realize that their long rearguard campaign against the movement has been lost, and rather than devoting energy to grand sweeping critiques of the movement as a whole, will focus on more specific critiques of individual studies, designs, interpretations and findings and the application of research to policy, yielding better overall outcomes. And of course, there is the possibility that this changes nothing and we'll be still be having these same conversations about the use or uselessness of randomized trials in development economics 10 and 20 years from now.
2. Migration: It's here, at long last. Something like 7 years ago, I was talking with Michael Clemens about households, finances, migration and remittances. We got ourselves in a good dudgeon about the way most research approached remittances and agreed we should write a paper about re-conceiving migration as an investment and remittances as a cash flow return on that investment. It took us, I think, about 2 years to actually write the thing. That version turned into a couple of Lego stop motion videos--it was a weird time in the development internet back then--and we submitted it to a journal. Then, 5 years later we got a response. I'm not kidding.
But there's a happy ending. We were invited to revise and update (there was of course a lot to update after 5 years) and re-submit. And this week the finished product is finally published: Migration and Household Finances: How a Different Framing Can Improve Thinking About Migration (though I'll keep thinking of it as "Migration as a Household Finance Strategy").
And since Michael is so prolific on questions of migration, here's a thread from this week, with papers, on the old argument that physically coercing people to stay where they are is justifiable. (Spoiler: it's not).
3. US Inequality: Since the US Financial Diaries, a common refrain around here has been the hidden dimensions of inequality in the US--not just the easily quantifiable things like income or wealth, but the life and work circumstances that amplify and entrench income and wealth inequality. Things like irregular work schedules.
Kristen Harknett and Danny Schneider have been investigating the prevalence and impact of irregular work schedules for a few years. Earlier this year they had a paper about the consequences of irregular schedules on worker health and well-being. They have a new report out on how schedule irregularity "matters for workers, families and racial inequality." Here's an overview of their whole research program with links to other papers, and a very consumable summary from the Center for Equitable Growth.
I mentioned the strange times a few years ago as we all struggled with how to use the tools the internet was serving up to us to better communicate research and ideas. I have to say I'm impressed by the what is in evidence here in the partnership between Harknett and Schneider and the Center for Equitable Growth to get these ideas out through multiple channels.
On not just a US inequality note, I'll be at the Global Inclusive Growth Summit hosted by the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth and the Aspen Institute on Monday and a Center event on driving financial security at scale on Tuesday. If any faiV readers will be there, be sure to say hello.
Week of October 11, 2019
1. Microfinance: October 2nd was the 10th anniversary of what I consider to be an underappreciated but critical moment in the history of the microfinance movement--David Roodman's piece on how Kiva actually worked. David had already been working on a book about microfinance that was going to be very influential--his open book blog as a whole is a remarkable contribution to the public good, one I wish many more people had decided to replicate--but the Kiva post (based on it being one of the most read blog posts in CGD history according to Justin Sandefur) brought a huge amount of attention to questions about how not only Kiva, but microfinance as a whole, actually worked. I re-read it this week and it's as good as I remember it and definitely makes me pine for the brief glorious time where the development blogosphere was a thing.
There's another important anniversary this week for global microfinance though with a less arbitrarily neat number--Muhammad Yunus's Peace Prize was 13 years ago. Today many were surprised that Greta Thunberg didn't win. The explanation seeming to be both timing and the fact that there is not a direct link between climate change and conflict. There may be a narrowing of the scope of the Peace Prize given that there is certainly no connection between microcredit and reduced conflict. In case you didn't know the winner was Abiy Ahmed, the Ethiopian Prime Minister, who has done some pretty impressive things directly related to peace, like ending the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia and freeing thousands of political prisoners. For what it's worth the Economics Nobel announcement is Monday so expect to see more about that in next week's faiV. Some favorites with particular applicability to the faiV include some combination of Donald Rubin, Josh Angrist, John List and Guido Imbens for kicking off "the credibility revolution" and Michael Kremer, Abhijit Bannerjee, Esther Duflo and/or John List for kicking off the experimental revolution. Of course, I'm hoping for the latter because it would likely give a pretty significant boost to my book sales.
But back to microfinance. Banerjee, Emily Breza, Townsend and Vera-Cossio have a new paper (presented at NEUDC) that uses the Townsend Thai village data and the expansion of a credit program to further bolster what should be the clear consensus on the effect of microcredit: on average not much, but very high returns for some. In this case, they find that there are very large gains for high productivity households who get access to credit (1.5 baht increase in profits for every 1 baht increase in credit) and even higher for those outside agriculture. This is broadly similar to earlier work, now in an NBER paper form, by Banerjee, Breza, Duflo and Cynthia Kinnan on Indian microfinance. Keep in mind, as we continue to see these results, that there is another side of the coin: is there a business model that can reach the high productivity borrowers more exclusively?
2. Inequality: If you think about within-country inequality, you think about taxes. Since the United States has had a huge explosion of income and wealth inequality in the last few decades, and there is a presidential election (hopefully) just over a year away there is a lot of discussion about the US tax system and how it has contributed to the growth of inequality and how it might be used to reduce it. This week there has been a lot of focus particularly on whether the US tax system is progressive or regressive, which seems intuitively like it should be a pretty straightforward question to answer. But the US tax system is so complicated, including not only collecting but distributing cash, it's a controversial question. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman make the case that since the 1950s the US tax system has shifted dramatically toward being regressive. Here's David Leonhardt's shorter version of their argument with cool animated graphics. But not everyone agrees and those differences can't be traced just to ideology. Here's a thread from Jason Furman, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under Obama debating Zucman on methodology and interpretation. Here's David Splinter with a more in-depth analysis illustrating why Saez and Zucman get such different numbers than the traditional approaches to analyzing progressivity.
Meanwhile, there is an entirely different question about whether taxes can be used to effectively address inequality (Saez and Zucman's book is all about how the wealthy evade taxes). There's a new NBER paper on the response of rich taxpayers to an increase in the California tax rate. It finds that just under 1% of those subject to the higher taxes moved out of state, and those who stayed found ways to avoid the tax, so that total income from the tax was about half of what it would have been otherwise. Here's Lyman Stone's Twitter summary.
It's not clear how to think about that 50% cut in additional revenue: on the one hand, there is a big increase in tax collection, on the other hand you have to expect that over time people are going to get even better at evading the tax. Here's Lily Batchelder and David Kamin with a comprehensive review of wealth taxation in implementation with hope that wealth taxes can work.
Week of July 16, 2018
1. Women's Empowerment: Our friends at JPAL released their long-anticipated Practical Guide to Measuring Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment in Impact Evaluations. It comes with a set of questionnaires and examples of non-survey tools that can be more effective at capturing the useful and reliable data. This new study from the U.S. Census Bureau is timely, showing that when a woman earns more than her husband they both tend to exaggerate the husband’s earnings and diminish the wife’s on their Census responses. Gender norms still shape survey responses, no matter where you are. Seems like a good time to revisit IPA’s discussions on mixed methods approaches to women’s empowerment measurement with Nicola Jones and with Sarah Baird from last year. Finally, the US House passed the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018 this week. The bill seeks to improve USAID’s work on women’s access to finance, and is notable first because of its attention to some (not all) non-financial gender-norms constraints that impact women’s prosperity, and also because it calls for improvements to outcome measurement methods.
2. Migration: The first ever Global Compact for Migration was approved by all 193 member states of the UN last week except for the United States (Hungary is now saying it won’t sign the final document), and one of its 23 high-level objectives is to “promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants.” A lot of the language in here sounds like the same old story on remittances, and I am skeptical of the laser-sharp focus on reducing prices (it calls to eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5% by 2030), promoting financial education, and investing in consumer product comparison tools that aren’t based on evidence. Dean Yang’s 2016 study on financial education for Filipino migrants failed to find any positive impact on financial product take-up or usage, for example.
3. Remittances: What about looking to the behavioral econ world to enhance the positive effects of remittances? Behavioral nudges that can leverage digital finance look promising – Harvard Business Review had a nice piece last month on Blumenstock, Callen, and Ghani’s test of mobile money defaults to save in Afghanistan. This experiment is exciting because it shows that, with the right tools, successful interventions from the developed world, like Thaler and Benartzi’s Save More Tomorrow, can achieve similar results in other contexts. Linking remittance transfers to digital finance in the receiving country can create additional opportunities to enhance impact beyond savings, for example using data for credit scoring. Here’s an op-ed from Rafe Mazer and FSD Africa on the opportunities and risks surrounding data sharing models in emerging markets.
Week of April 2, 2018
1. Global Development: To start us off, how about some rain on the "rising Kenyan middle class" parade? The core point--that gains from rising incomes that don't translate into durable assets can rapidly be erased, a perspective that should sound familiar to anyone with a passing knowledge of anti-poverty policy in the US.
But the real parade in global development in recent years has been on the value of delivering cash to poor households. This is a train that's been picking up steam for a long while. I would date the current push back to the first studies of Progresa/Opportunidades, the Mexican conditional cash transfer program. Momentum has steadily built around both the positive impact of cash transfers--that recipients don't waste the money, that they use the money productively--and dropping conditions. That momentum was built on many studies, but probably the two most well known in international circles are Blattman, Fiala and Martinez on cash transfers in Uganda, and Haushofer and Shapiro/GiveDirectly in Kenya. Both showed significant gains by recipients of unconditional cash.
Both of those papers were about relatively short-term effects. Both studies included longer-term follow-ups. And you know what's coming: the large positive effects seem to have disappeared in the medium term. Berk Ozler of the World Bank is currently playing the role of Deng (it's the closest I could get geographically) with two lengthy blog posts. The first, keying off comments from Chris Blattman in the recent Conversations with Tyler, but really delving into the recently released update to the Haushofer and Shapiro/GiveDirectly update is the important one for non-specialists. The second is very useful for understanding the specific details of interpretation. The posts also kicked off a number of useful Twitter conversations (here, here, here, here and here, though that's just a sample; just scroll through Chris's and Berk's timelines for more). Berk's first post also takes on the role that academics have played in stoking that momentum and is worth a close read.
I think it's also important to think through what is happening with cash transfers in light of not only of other studies of cash (like this one finding positive effects on the personality of Cherokee Native American kids whose families receive cash that was just officially published) but also other interventions. Deworming is one example--one big source of the controversy over the effects of deworming is that there isn't a medium-term biological effect to explain the the long-term economic effects. The Moving to Opportunity study is another--no short-term or medium-term gains, only long-term ones. And I have to note that the Native American paper is a frustrating example of Berk's critique of the role academics can play in raising expectations too high--the paper's title and abstract simply reference a large positive effect of cash transfers with no indication of when (now? 10 years ago? 30 years ago?), where or who the participants are, or even the size or mechanism of the transfers.
First Week of March, 2018
1. Global Development: One of the more encouraging trends in development economics as far as I'm concerned is the growth of long-term studies that report results not just once but on an on-going basis. Obviously long-term tracking like the Young Lives Project or smaller scale work like Robert Townsend's tracking of a Thai village (which continues to yield valuable insights) falls in this category, but it's now also happening with long term follow-up from experimental studies. Sometimes that takes the form of tracking down people affected by earlier studies, as Owen Ozier did with deworming in Kenya. But more often it seems, studies are maintaining contact over longer time frames. A few weeks ago I mentioned a new paper following up on Bloom et. al.'s experiment with Indian textile firms. The first paper found significant effects of management consulting in improving operations and boosting profits. The new paper sees many, but not all, of those gains persist eight years later. Another important example is the on-going follow up of the original Give Directly experiment on unconditional cash transfers. Haushofer and Shapiro have new results from a three year follow-up, finding that as above, many gains persist but not all and the comparisons unsurprisingly get a bit messier.
Although it's not quite the same, I do feel like I should include some new work following up on the Targeting the Ultra Poor studies--in this case not of long-term effects but on varying the packages and comparing different approaches as directly as possible. Here's Sedlmayr, Shah and Sulaiman on a variety of cash-plus interventions in Uganda--the full package of transfers and training, only the transfers, transfers with only a light-touch training and just attempting to boost savings. They find that cash isn't always king: the full package outperforms the alternatives.
2. Our Algorithmic Overlords: If you missed it, yesterday's special edition faiV was a review of Virginia Eubanks Automating Inequality. But there's always a slew of interesting reads on these issues, contra recent editorials that no one is paying attention. Here's NYU's AINow Institute on Algorithmic Impact Assessments as a tool for providing more accountability around the use of algorithms in public agencies. While I tend to focus this section on unintended negative consequences of AI, there is another important consideration: intended negative consequences of AI. I'm not talking about SkyNet but the use of AI to conduct cyberattacks, create fraudulent voice/video, or other criminal activities. Here's a report from a group of AI think tanks including EFF and Open AI on the malicious use of artificial intelligence.
3. Interesting Tales from Economic History: I may make this a regular item as I tend to find these things quite interesting, and based on the link clicks a number of you do too. Here's some history to revise your beliefs about the Dutch Tulip craze, a story it turns out that has been too good to fact check, at least until Anne Goldgar of King's College did so. And here's work from Judy Stephenson of Oxford doing detailed work on working hours and pay for London construction workers during the 1700s. Why is this interesting? Because it's important to understand the interaction of productivity gains, the industrial revolution, wages and welfare--something that we don't know enough about but has implications as we think about the future of work, how it pays and the economic implications for different levels of skills. And in a different vein, but interesting none-the-less, here is an epic thread from Pseudoerasmus on Steven Pinker's new book nominally about the Enlightenment.
Week of June 26, 2017
1. Weaponized Data and American Inequality: Last week I linked to a paper finding minimal effects from minimum wage increases, unaware that a huge explosion of debate on this issue was about to occur. If you follow these things at all, you know that last Friday a paper on Seattle's minimum wage increase was released finding no job losses or cuts in hours. Monday, a different paper finding large losses for households with minimum wage jobs was released. There's a whole lot out there now on the two papers so I'm not going to rehash those arguments (if you need to catch up, try this or this or this or just scroll through Twitter). I want to focus on the backstory of why there were two papers released so close to each other because it's important for the future of research and policy-making. As detailed here, what appears to have happened is researchers at UW shared an early draft of their paper (using tax data that is rarely available in minimum wage studies) with the Seattle mayor's office. The mayor's office didn't like the conclusions so asked a different set of researchers to write their own paper--and release it just before the planned date for release of the UW paper. While I have no special insight into the exact details of what happened, the prospect that the report is accurate disturbs me a great deal. It's a blatant step toward what the author of the Seattle Weekly piece calls "weaponized data." Be afraid for evidence-based policy. Very afraid.
In other American inequality news on topics that yield strong confirmation bias reactions, Justin Fox reports on new work suggesting that occupational licensing actually crowded-in historically disadvantaged workers--seemingly the transparent rules of licensing reduced formal and informal discrimination that kept these groups underemployed. That's a very plausible story to me, though I generally also buy the anti-licensure arguments.
There's also new work on school vouchers, from Indiana, finding short-term declines in test scores, but later (over four years) gains. It's worth noting how claims for vouchers have down-shifted to "no harm and some students gain." But keeping on the weaponized data theme, the paper is not publicly available and was only obtained by ChalkBeat through public records requests. Apparently the study authors don't think it should be public until it's peer-reviewed, which illustrates the difference in norms in sociology and economics.
2. Our Algorithmic Overlords: Also a few weeks ago I linked to a story about how to tell if borrowers on online lending platforms were going to default, and to the book, Everybody Lies, from which it came. I said I was going to read the book and I started this week--and was immediately dismayed. The opening of the book discusses what search data--particularly searches on pornography websites--can tell us about Americans' hidden desires. You can see a summary in this deeply disappointing Vox piece (isn't Vox supposed to be better at thinking critically about this stuff?). There is no discussion of how such data might be biased or inaccurate, how a site's interface may interact with what people search for, or why we should believe that search data closely corresponds to "real life." In other words, it's an object lesson in the dangers of using data and algorithms without understanding the data or the people, social structures and institutions that generate it. So of course it's a best seller. Suffice it to say that I have radically revised down my faith in any of the book's conclusions.
In other data-generating processes of uncertain usefulness news, Google will stop showing ads inside Gmail based on scans of email content (illustrating the sucker's game that is attention, I had no idea they were still doing this; I hadn't noticed an ad in years). The nominal reason is combating hesitance from corporates to adopt Gmail and Google's suite of web apps. As someone in my Twitter feed noted, the real reason is that Google already gets better information to drive ads to you than your email.
Week of April 4, 2016
1. Poorest of the Poor: There's new data from the Bangladesh "graduation model" evaluation that provided livestock and training to very poor women. After three years, results were strikingly positive. Now there's a 7 year follow-up that suggests those gains hold for the long-term and may even continue to increase--importantly with no evidence of negative spillovers and some evidence of positive spillovers to others in the village. Development Impact
2. Debt vs Savings: If you get an influx of cash, should you pay down debt or build up savings? It's a hard question to answer. Allison Schrager argues that paying down debt is conventional wisdom (is it?) but that saving is better than paying down low-interest, long-term debt for millennials. Of course, by rough calculation only 30% of millennials have such debt while the average American household carries $15,000+ of credit card debt. Quartz
3. Efficient Markets: Omar Al-Ubaydli and John List review the findings of field experiments on markets, finding that while there are behavioral quirks that limit market efficiency, many of those quirks disappear when participants have the chance to learn. A useful reminder when thinking about the use of nudges and the application of behavioral economics. NBER
Read More
