I can only address one of your points from question 1. Evidence Action has abandoned and completely started at least one of their interventions which proved to be ineffective in light of new evidence. If I remember correctly, it was in Bangladesh.
I’ve searched and found this post describing it. The summary:
Evidence Action is terminating the No Lean Season program, which was designed to increase household food consumption and income by providing travel subsidies for seasonal migration by poor rural laborers in Bangladesh, and was based on multiple rounds of rigorous research showing positive effects of the intervention. This is an important decision for Evidence Action, and we want to share the rationale behind it.
Two factors led to this, including the disappointing 2017 evidence on program performance coupled with operational challenges given a recent termination of the relationship with our local partner due to allegations of financial improprieties.
Ultimately, we determined that the opportunity cost for Evidence Action of rebuilding the program is too high relative to other opportunities we have to meet our vision of measurably improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Importantly, we are not saying that seasonal migration subsidies do not work or that they lack impact; rather, No Lean Season is unlikely to be among the best strategic opportunities for Evidence Action to achieve our vision.
I can only address one of your points from question 1. Evidence Action has abandoned and completely started at least one of their interventions which proved to be ineffective in light of new evidence. If I remember correctly, it was in Bangladesh.
Thank you!
I’ve searched and found this post describing it. The summary:
Thank you. Yes, this is exactly what I referring to.