Thanks for the link. I want to emphasize that I think this is a very good paper. The intro especially is well worth reading for its description of the program and poverty trap model.
Here’s a relevant quote; the results aren’t much of an update as the absolute treatment effect in terms of per-capita consumption didn’t change between years 7 and 10.
Average household per capita consumption was $1.35 (2018 PPP) at baseline in the control group and $2.90 by year ten. [...] [The treatment group’s] per capita consumption is $0.60 per day (0.6 standard deviations) higher than the control group at both years seven and ten, and income is 0.3 standard deviations higher. This temporal pattern of growing effects followed by persistence is consistent with the alleviation of a poverty trap, what BRAC describes as the graduation of treated households. However, it is also consistent with there being persistent effects without actually getting out of a trap: the control households do become less poor over time, and the treatment households are still not very rich by the time the treatment effect stabilizes (although their average consumption is above the World Bank threshold for “moderate poverty”).
(p. 472, emphasis mine)
Note that the authors’ wording is more cautious and nuanced than the Vox article.
Here’s a link to the Banerjee paper for those without institutional access.
Thanks for the link. I want to emphasize that I think this is a very good paper. The intro especially is well worth reading for its description of the program and poverty trap model.
Here’s a relevant quote; the results aren’t much of an update as the absolute treatment effect in terms of per-capita consumption didn’t change between years 7 and 10.
(p. 472, emphasis mine)
Note that the authors’ wording is more cautious and nuanced than the Vox article.