Based on GDLive, literature, and understanding of extreme poverty livelihoods in some areas of GiveDirectly operations, it can be estimated that the majority of GiveDirectly beneficiaries uses charcoal and unclean burning practices. In addition, some burn wood to make charcoal to generate income. This can be unsustainable and significantly contribute to disease burden. There is no indication that beneficiaries buy a clean-burning stove or change their charcoal business.
Thus, would it be beneficial to label one of the smaller ($27) cash transfers as ‘to invest into a clean burning stove to prevent health problems and to gain information on environmentally sustainable businesses?’
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the cash transfers be restricted to use on investment in a clean burning stove? If so, my next questions would be
How serious are the negative health effects vs. the cost of purchasing a cleaner stove?
Has anyone tried to inform the recipients of these health effects and simply suggest investing into a cleaner stove?
No, not restricted, just the use would be recommended—without a follow-up or monitoring: “labeled cash transfer (LCT), in which funds are indicated, or “labeled,” for a specific purpose, but the conditions are not enforced” (IPA).
1. Moderate respiratory problems have a 0.225 (0.153-0.31) disability weight, while mild respiratory problems have 0.019 (0.011-0.033) weight, according to IHME. Apparently, more than 4m people die due to unclean cooking, which is more than malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis combined. Apparently, unclean cooking is 4th leading cause of deaths in the world and 2.9 b people use this method (World Bank blogs). Looking at GDLive, perhaps the majority of beneficiaries spend some funds to buy food for the family. For example, the family can have an extra meal for 2 months. While hunger (mild, equivalent of one less meal per day) disability weight is not specified, one can estimate this equivalent to that of mild respiratory problems. Assuming that a clean burning stove can last for 5 years and prevent mild respiratory problems when used, then this decision provides (5*12-2)*0.019=1.102 QALYs. If unclean cooking would cause moderate respiratory infections and reduction of meals investment moderate hunger, the gain would be (5*12-2)*0.225=13.05 QALYs.
2. This relates to the definition of the labeled cash transfer—but I am not aware of any organizations that would inform people about these benefits. Development Media International does not seem to focus on it. There are NGOs that help people build stoves or companies that manufacture them—maybe if these improved their marketing, then the problem would be solved?
I now see what you’re saying about labeling vs. mandating. That’s an important distinction which I suspect not many people were aware of when reading this post.
I think this is a decent idea given a small reframe. Rather than thinking of it as earmarking the cash for a specific purpose, treating it like an unenforced restriction, instead think of the cash transfers as having an opportunity to provide information attached, and try to provide good information. Ie, instead of “this cash transfer is for X”, say “this cash transfer comes with a small pamphlet with several purchase ideas X,Y,Z”. This framing is more cooperative, and fails more gracefully if the recommendations are bad.
oooh! yes, there are all the options you can invest, if you get this you get bunch of great preventive healthcare, or this! - you see clean air further healthcare—what about fortified flour—mmm micronutrients—education for a child—would have probably thought of that already but sit with them to study makes a difference—chlorine for clean water is a great deal—oh a bednet—travel to a clinic—would have thought about it but maybe a list of times when that can be an especially great idea—etc (ok got the idea)