Cash or Condition?

Evidence from a
Cash Transfer
Experiment
S. Baird, C. McIntosh & B. Özler (2011)

A presentation by Georgina Gonzales

for DE292/Econ 298 Session 3:
Experiments and Randomized Control
Trials, 22 February 2024
The Experiment
Objective: Examine the impact of varied cash transfer schemes on a range of outcomes
• School enrollment and attendance
• Human capital formation (reading comprehension, mathematics, cognitive skills)
• Marriage
• Childbearing
• Other health outcomes

Intervention: Cash transfers

• Conditional on school attendance
• Unconditional
• Varied amounts to parents and girls (min. US$5/household)

Participants: 2,907 school-age girls

• Never-married
• Aged 13-22
• Primarily in school at baseline

Location: Zomba District, Malawi

• Urban, near rural and far rural areas in and around Zomba City

Duration: 2 years (6 school terms), 2008-2009

Theory of Change
Empower girls to
Encourage continued Contribute to long-
Reduce economic make choices that
Cash transfer +/- school attendance term economic
barriers to school would lead to better
conditionality and improved independence and
attendance educational, social
performance overall well-being
and health outcomes

Expected Impact Measurement

Improved school attendance
Improved school performance
Delayed marriage and childbearing
Improved health outcomes (e.g., lower
risk of HIV infection)
School enrollment rates, attendance
records
Test scores in English, math, cognitive
skills
Incidence of marriage, pregnancy
Self-reported sexual activity
Randomized Control Trial
The experiment’s design appears to be well-considered and rigorous, particularly given the program’s
Initial randomization, invitation to participate at
treatment EAs objectives – features such as the following improved and further nuanced the analysis: geographic
stratification, randomization at different levels, separation of transfers, variation of transfer amounts,
measurement of multiple outcomes, transparency in implementation, and consideration of ethical aspects.

Baseline surveys and subsequent randomization at

public lotteries
Recipients and
Geographic Treatment vs. Conditionality of

550 Enumeration Areas (EAs)

amount of
stratification control transfer
transfer
Implementation of cash transfer interventions
(average 14.1 for CCT, 17.9 for UCT)
Parents at
CCT village level
> 80% attendance,
Follow-up surveys on outcomes, including 46 EAs Girls at
qualitative surveys to gauge understanding and individual level
perceptions 506 girls

Parents at
Treatment village level
UCT
Analysis of impacts using differences-in- 176 EAs 88 EAs
differences estimation techniques 29 urban, 119 near 27 EAs Girls at
rural, 28 far rural Control individual level
283 girls
Methodological challenges: accuracy of self-reported 88 EAs
data, attrition, measurement of outcomes No offer 623 girls
Strategies: use of administrative data, use of robust 15 EAs
statistical techniques to handle missing data, thorough
data collection efforts
 vs. control group CCT UCT
Number of terms enrolled 0.23*** 0.41***
Findings (self-reported)
The evidence presented Number of terms enrolled 0.53*** 0.23*
supports the conclusion that (teacher-reported)
while CCTs may be more English test score SD 0.14*** -
effective in improving school Math test score SD 0.12*** -
attendance and performance, Cognitive test score SD 0.17*** -
UCTs have a broader impact
Marriage rate - -44%***
on reducing early marriage esp. dropouts
and pregnancy rates,
suggesting that the choice Prevalence of pregnancy - -27%***
esp. dropouts
between UCTs and CCTs
depends on the specific Transfer amount Minimum amount Outcomes vary with
objectives of a program. responsible for entire increased transfer offers
impact (increase in enrollment
Further, the discrepancy in
rates, decline in incidence
reported impacts highlights
of marriage)
the importance of data
source in evaluating Transfer recipient Varying transfer recipients Only increasing transfers
programs. has no effect on to parents impact
outcomes outcomes
Cost-effectiveness Evaluation
The evaluation did consider the cost and cost-
effectiveness of the policy or program, finding that CCTs
were more cost-effective than UCTs in increasing school
enrollment and attendance.

To achieve the same enrollment gain obtained from a $5/month total transfer in the CCT
arm, a transfer of more than $10 to the parents in the UCT arm would be needed

Difference is much larger than the additional cost of administering a CCT program
(approx. 8% of total program costs according to the World Bank), possibly by an order of
magnitude
Savings due to noncompliance with the schooling condition in the CCT arm, which
resulted in 19% lower actual transfers per person over the 2-year intervention, would
more than make up for the additional administrative cost of monitoring in most
programs