Do we have a sense of how well the well-studied benefits of UCT in a general population sample might be diminished to some extent in a month-of-birth sample?
From the study, it seems that the month-of-birth recipients spend their money in a manner that is meaningfully different than how a general sample spends the money. For example, one might expect a general population to spend relatively more on home improvements since it would not be spending nearly as much on improving birth outcomes. And to the extent that the month-of-birth sample used some of the money to reduce maternal labor while maintaining or improving consumption, it’s not clear that this slice of expenditures would have the same spillover effects as most potential uses of the money.
That is to say that “the same $1,000 cash transfer improved” graphic looks fair for a general population but might not end up reflecting the non-mortality outcomes for a month-of-birth program. Or to state it differently, we might be looking at trading off some magnitude of certain classic GiveDirectly positive outcomes for better child/maternal health outcomes. I suspect it will be a tradeoff worth making, though.
Perhaps the most lifesaving consumption does not, but the drop in labor-force participation for a six-month period was pretty significant:
“In the
three months before and after a birth, however, cash transfers reduce female labor supply in
recipient households by 20.79 hours a week, relative to a control group mean of 40 hours . . . .”
Do we have a sense of how well the well-studied benefits of UCT in a general population sample might be diminished to some extent in a month-of-birth sample?
From the study, it seems that the month-of-birth recipients spend their money in a manner that is meaningfully different than how a general sample spends the money. For example, one might expect a general population to spend relatively more on home improvements since it would not be spending nearly as much on improving birth outcomes. And to the extent that the month-of-birth sample used some of the money to reduce maternal labor while maintaining or improving consumption, it’s not clear that this slice of expenditures would have the same spillover effects as most potential uses of the money.
That is to say that “the same $1,000 cash transfer improved” graphic looks fair for a general population but might not end up reflecting the non-mortality outcomes for a month-of-birth program. Or to state it differently, we might be looking at trading off some magnitude of certain classic GiveDirectly positive outcomes for better child/maternal health outcomes. I suspect it will be a tradeoff worth making, though.
I agree, although I doubt the consumption which saves the babies eats much of the money—I would guess under 100 dollars in most cases.
Perhaps the most lifesaving consumption does not, but the drop in labor-force participation for a six-month period was pretty significant:
“In the three months before and after a birth, however, cash transfers reduce female labor supply in recipient households by 20.79 hours a week, relative to a control group mean of 40 hours . . . .”