Week of October 10, 2016

1. Digital Identity: A few weeks ago we featured a paper on the general equilibrium effects of NREGA in India, which depends on a universal ID system. Next Billion takes a look at India's digital ID system and compares it with Pakistan's program.

2. Insurance (Is Hard All Over): When you read about attempts to launch microinsurance programs for developing countries, it can often seem like insurance markets work very well in developed countries. But insurance is hard no matter where you are, and may be getting harder due to climate risks and our human failings in thinking about large but rare risks. Here's a new brief from the Penn Wharton Public Policy Institute looking at how under-insured many American homeowners are and proposing some steps to get those people to buy insurance

3. Shocks and External ValidityTypically conversations about the external validity of an impact evaluation focus on whether a finding in one place applies to a finding in another place. Here's a new paper by Rosenzweig and Udry looking at external validity issues in the same place but in different times, specifically at how important aggregate shocks can be when impact is likely to vary over time (as with agriculture or schooling). I'm not sure how big a problem not considering time variance is, but it is a good reminder to examine assumptions when applying findings from impact evaluations.

4. Crops, Volatility, Saving and Malnutrition: There's been a lot of progress around the world in reducing childhood malnutrition and stunting, but rates are still shockingly high in India, given the economic development in the last few decades. Here's some new research that establishes that households "save" to deal with volatile prices of pulses by stockpiling wheat (which is less nutritious). In part, saving in wheat is driven by the cost of formal accounts to save in cash.

5. C-C-Ts in the USA: Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like R-O-C-K does it? MDRC, which ran the evaluation of the Family Rewards CCT program in New York, has a new cost-benefit analysis of the program (of note, taking Rozenzweig and Udry seriously, the program was run in 2007, and depending on the exact timing there was an aggregate shock during the program or shortly thereafter). They find that on average it cost $1.07 to deliver $1.00 of value to households, and the program "did not produce positive net present value for taxpayers."

A new way to represent funding needs and overhead costs for non-profits and social enterprises. Source: Nonprofit Assistance Fund

A new way to represent funding needs and overhead costs for non-profits and social enterprises. Source: Nonprofit Assistance Fund

Return to the Weekly faiV