Editor's Note: You're not hallucinating, experiencing a weird time warp or flashback. But maybe I am.
- Tim Ogden
1. What the hell?
Yes, this is a new faiV, for the first time since [checks notes; checks notes again; checks calendar on current date; checks calendar on current date and year; hangs head in shame and disbelief] June, 2021. So, you (and I) could hardly be blamed for asking "What the hell happened?" The answer is complicated but mostly prosaic: my time has been focused on a seven-country financial diaries study, and three or four other field work projects that we've been running or participating in. But it's also that the world that the faiV existed in and was a part of has changed a lot. Here I don't mean the pandemic etc., at least not directly. I mean that the world of information creation and sharing has changed dramatically. As we contemplated reviving the faiV at various times in 2022 and 2023, we kept running into barriers like: what platform should we be using? What's getting through email filters now? How do we gather the information to write a faiV? Where are people posting now?
Viewing all posts with tag: Microcredit
Week of July 25th, 2020
Editor's Note: It's been a bit more than four years that I've been writing the faiV and though I probably haven't had as many links as minutes in a year, it's a safe bet that there have been more than 200 faiVs and 4000 links in that time. So I took a bit of an unannounced hiatus for the month. I hope you missed the faiV.
If you did, and you'd be interested in being part of a feedback panel that we are putting together to help us make decisions about the future of the faiV, please just respond to this email. And if you missed us but think the faiV is already perfect, feel free to respond to say that, but more importantly, please tell a few friends and colleagues to subscribe.
In public services announcements, there are a couple of research funding opportunities that may be of interest to you: a) UNESCAP has a new RFP for evidence-based interventions to support women entrepreneurs (in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Fiji, Nepal, Samoa, or Vietnam); and b) ANDE and the Canadian IDRC have a call for Expressions of Interest on studying the experiences of women in venture accelerators in Latin America and SSA.
--Tim Ogden
Read MoreMicrofinance and COVID-19
This edition of faiVLive brought together expert practitioners and researchers to discuss how we should be thinking about the impact of COVID-19 and pandemic control policies on poor households in developing countries, what policy interventions are plausible and possible, what role does microfinance have to play, and what needs to happen to enable the global microfinance industry to be useful now and six months from now.
Read MoreWeek of April 3, 2020
Editor's Note: The only two predictions I feel I confident in making right now are that a) we will find some new phrase for opening a conversation other than "How are you?" or at least some new way to answer the question, and b) that the trend of putting webcams on the bottom of a laptop screen is over. Thanks to all of you who reached out in reaction to the abbreviated version of the faiV last week focused on my concerns about the future of microfinance in the US and globally. Please keep sending information and thoughts my way.
Read MoreWeek of March 23, 2020
Editor’s Note: What a difference a month makes. I've started drafting a new edition of the faiV several times over the last six weeks, but events kept overwhelming the moment and I put it off again. Now it seems that events have overwhelmed everything. And so, here is a special edition of the faiV with few links and only two thoughts around one central theme: the existential crisis for microfinance globally.
Read MoreWeek of January 31, 2020
1. Financial Inclusion/Household Financial Security: It seems strange that I so infrequently have items specifically on microfinance so I leap at the chance when it comes along, particularly when that chance involves one of my soapboxes. For instance: the product is what the users make of it, not what the institution wants it to be. For instance, most microcredit loans aren't investment loans, they're liquidity management tools. Which, of course, makes sense since liquidity management is a more pressing need and the structure of the basic microcredit loan is so ill-suited to business investment. But there are ways to make the standard microcredit loan structure more workable for investment purposes. For instance, borrowers from the largest MFI in China form bogus groups and then funnel all of the loans to a single member to make a larger investment. It's not a niche phenomena either: the authors estimate that 73% of groups are doing this.
Another of my soapboxes is the history of development of financial institutions that serve excluded populations, and where the modern microfinance movement fits in that history. There's a new paper from Marvin Suesse and Nikolaus Wolf on the development rural credit cooperatives in Prussia between 1852 and 1913 (I did say this was a pet interest). And here's a summary version in VoxEU. If that doesn't sound like the kind of thing you would normally click on, I beg you to reconsider. It's an interesting story about what drove the creation of a new kind of financial services institution in a setting that makes it a bit easier to disentangle causes and effects, and what effect these new institutions had on their communities. I won't spoil the ending but would encourage you to think about how their results would look if measured with an individual-focused impact evaluation.
I will spoil the beginning, though: the formation of credit cooperatives was driven by changes in the economy that increased the need for access to credit. Which brings me to a third soapbox, the Great Convergence (and there's more on that below). Here's a new report from the New York Fed on constrained access to credit in the United States, including a "Credit Insecurity Index." The premise is that access to credit is important for households to manage liquidity, manage investment and manage risk (those are my terms, theirs are "manage emergencies, take advantage of opportunities, or invest"), but that access varies geographically for lots of different reasons. The report tracks 5 tiers of credit access and changes in those tiers over time, by county. There are 11 states where more than 10% of the population lives in credit-insecure counties. It's another way to illustrate how much in common parts of the US, geographically and demographically, have in common with middle-income countries. Speaking of, I'd love to see a similar exercise done in other countries.
Finally, and keeping with the Great Convergence sub-theme, here's a new paper from Jonathan Fu looking at representative data from six "emerging economies" and five "developed economies" to look at "contextual-level" predictors of financial well-being. He finds that more sources of independent information, more competition, and specifically more competition from informal and semi-formal providers helps, and that simple access and financial literacy don't (hey, another soapbox!).
2. Digital Finance: Writing about digital finance is frequently tough because the line between what is "finance" and what is "digital finance" isn't all that clear much of the time. Thirty years ago most credit card transactions were digital (the information was passed over phone lines from modem-to-modem!) but we don't tend to think of that as "digital finance." Another of my soapboxes is that often the "digital" in "digital finance" is used as a justification to pretend the rules of finance don't apply. Here's a useful review in an unusual outlet (Computer) on the "technical potential versus practical reality" of digital finance, specifically blockchain and crypto, for low-income people. It cites some examples I was unaware of and presents the arguments for the benefits pretty clearly. But the best reason to read it is the Challenges section features a heading you almost never see from pieces that emerge from the digital side of digital finance: "Low-income groups' limited power and financial/social capital." Another thing I really like is it draws a distinction between FinTechs and TechFins, the latter being tech firms dabbling in finance.
The Economist has a piece this week on that issue specifically: "how digital financial services can prey upon the poor" with a specific focus on the potential for abuse of data gathered on poor customers who have little understanding of what is being gathered by whom or the consequences (to be fair, none of us do). To the point about the blurred line between finance and digital finance, there's not much there that hasn't been true of non-digital finance for a very long time.
The Economist piece relies heavily on CGAPs long-standing attention to these issues, and Matthew Soursourian and Ariadne Plaitakis have more to add in a look at how digital finance may require changes to competition policy in financial services, specifically as TechFins play a larger role. Oh look, they specifically call out issues of political power!
In their case it's the political power that the market power of TechFins brings, but it's not just the political power of corporations that becomes worrisome in digital finance. The political power of governments is even more concerning to the extent that it enables even more channels for surveillance, oppression and exclusion. Here's a story about Kenya's digital ID initiative that is excluding many marginalized groups from getting the IDs that will soon be necessary for many aspects of life including access to the financial system. But even those people who are included may end up excluded because the government lacks the tools and expertise to protect the very sensitive data that goes into the biometric IDs.
Week of December 6, 2019
1. Trends: Futurism has always come more easily to technologists than policy wonks (probably because it’s easier). But big gatherings are a good chance to look ahead to how the whole inclusive finance ecosystem, getting more complex each year, will evolve. e-MFP’s annual survey of financial inclusion trends – the Financial Inclusion Compass 2019 – was launched during EMW2019, and tries to do just this. If there were a single theme to this paper, it’s the disconnect between, on the one hand, individual stakeholders with their own interests and objectives, and on the other a collective confusion, a ‘soul-searching’ of sorts, for financial inclusion’s purpose amidst the panoply of initiatives and indicators in a sector of now bewildering complexity.
Digital transformation of institutions ranked top, a theme that dominated last year’s European Microfinance Award (EMA) and EMW, with Graham Wright’s keynote call for MFIs to “Digitise or Die!” (and see also the FinDev webinar series on the subject). Client protection remains at the forefront, (second in the rankings, see point 4 below for more going on here) and client-side digital innovations, despite the ubiquitous hype, is only in third overall – and only 7th among practitioners, who actually have to implement FinTech for clients. Do they know something that consultants and investors do not? Among New Areas of Focus (which looks 5-10 years down the track), Agri-Finance is clearly top. The Rural and Agricultural Finance Learning Lab, Mastercard Foundation and ISF Advisors’ Pathways to Prosperity presents the current state-of-the-sector. It’s worth looking at. Finally, Social Performance and/or Impact Measurement is 5th out of 20 trends. There’s too much to choose from here. But the CGAP blog on impact and evidence digs into the subject from a whole range of angles. And check out Tim’s CDC paper [No quid pro quo!--Tim] from earlier this year on the impact of investing in financial systems. Good to see that financial regulators are also giving this the attention it needs.
Finally, finance for refugees and displaced populations generated a lot of comments in the Compass - and was the biggest jumper in the New Area of Focus rankings. It’s been a big part of EMW for the last few years; climate migration was the theme of the excellent conference opening keynote by Tim McDonnell, journalist and National Geographic Explorer, and there’s lots of recent data (here in a World Bank blog) showing refugee numbers at (modern) record levels. Migration of course is inextricably linked to labor conditions. Low paid and low quality work drives migration [maybe we should have more research on migration as a household finance strategy--Tim]. For more on the ‘World of Work’ in the coming century, see below.
2. Climate Change: There may be more evolution in climate change/climate finance than any other area of financial inclusion today. From our side, the European Microfinance Award 2019 on ‘Strengthening Climate Change Resilience’ wrapped up last month, with APA Insurance Ltd of Kenya chosen as the winner for insuring pastoralists against forage deterioration that result in livestock deaths due to droughts . Forage availability is determined by satellite data, via the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). A short video on the program can be seen here.
The severity of climate change and the increasing impact it has on the world’s most vulnerable hardly needs outlining here. Progress has been excruciatingly slow. But a new report by the Global Commission on Adaptation, headed by Bill Gates and former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, aims to change that. Released in September 2019, it mapped out a $1.8 trillion blueprint to ready the world to withstand intensifying climate impacts. The Commission launched the report in a dozen capitals, with the overarching goal of jolting governments and businesses into action.
A bunch of recent publications illustrate the overdue acceleration of responses. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Climate Change Resilience Index is pretty stark reading. Africa will be hit the hardest by climate change according to the Index – with 4.7% real GDP loss by 2050 (well supported by the rankings in the ND-Gain index from Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), which summarizes countries’ vulnerability to (and readiness for) climate change. The EIU index shows that institutional quality matters a lot in minimising the effects. The paper also presents three case studies that highlight the importance of both economic development and policy effectiveness to tackle climate change. It’s worth a (fairly frightening) read. So is AFI’s new paper “Inclusive green finance: a survey of the policy landscape”, which asks and answers why financial regulators are working on climate change, how they have been integrating climate change concerns in their national financial inclusion policies and other financial sector strategies, and how they are collaborating with national agencies or institutions. Blue Orchard has also just published "Rethinking Climate Finance" which points to a US$400 billion shortfall by 2030 in climate finance, just to keep global temperatures within the 1.5 Celsius limit. The authors advocate various blended-finance products to encourage private sector investment, which, their survey reveals, is woefully low considering how significantly those investors perceive climate change risk to their portfolios.
Read MoreWeek of October 11, 2019
1. Microfinance: October 2nd was the 10th anniversary of what I consider to be an underappreciated but critical moment in the history of the microfinance movement--David Roodman's piece on how Kiva actually worked. David had already been working on a book about microfinance that was going to be very influential--his open book blog as a whole is a remarkable contribution to the public good, one I wish many more people had decided to replicate--but the Kiva post (based on it being one of the most read blog posts in CGD history according to Justin Sandefur) brought a huge amount of attention to questions about how not only Kiva, but microfinance as a whole, actually worked. I re-read it this week and it's as good as I remember it and definitely makes me pine for the brief glorious time where the development blogosphere was a thing.
There's another important anniversary this week for global microfinance though with a less arbitrarily neat number--Muhammad Yunus's Peace Prize was 13 years ago. Today many were surprised that Greta Thunberg didn't win. The explanation seeming to be both timing and the fact that there is not a direct link between climate change and conflict. There may be a narrowing of the scope of the Peace Prize given that there is certainly no connection between microcredit and reduced conflict. In case you didn't know the winner was Abiy Ahmed, the Ethiopian Prime Minister, who has done some pretty impressive things directly related to peace, like ending the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia and freeing thousands of political prisoners. For what it's worth the Economics Nobel announcement is Monday so expect to see more about that in next week's faiV. Some favorites with particular applicability to the faiV include some combination of Donald Rubin, Josh Angrist, John List and Guido Imbens for kicking off "the credibility revolution" and Michael Kremer, Abhijit Bannerjee, Esther Duflo and/or John List for kicking off the experimental revolution. Of course, I'm hoping for the latter because it would likely give a pretty significant boost to my book sales.
But back to microfinance. Banerjee, Emily Breza, Townsend and Vera-Cossio have a new paper (presented at NEUDC) that uses the Townsend Thai village data and the expansion of a credit program to further bolster what should be the clear consensus on the effect of microcredit: on average not much, but very high returns for some. In this case, they find that there are very large gains for high productivity households who get access to credit (1.5 baht increase in profits for every 1 baht increase in credit) and even higher for those outside agriculture. This is broadly similar to earlier work, now in an NBER paper form, by Banerjee, Breza, Duflo and Cynthia Kinnan on Indian microfinance. Keep in mind, as we continue to see these results, that there is another side of the coin: is there a business model that can reach the high productivity borrowers more exclusively?
2. Inequality: If you think about within-country inequality, you think about taxes. Since the United States has had a huge explosion of income and wealth inequality in the last few decades, and there is a presidential election (hopefully) just over a year away there is a lot of discussion about the US tax system and how it has contributed to the growth of inequality and how it might be used to reduce it. This week there has been a lot of focus particularly on whether the US tax system is progressive or regressive, which seems intuitively like it should be a pretty straightforward question to answer. But the US tax system is so complicated, including not only collecting but distributing cash, it's a controversial question. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman make the case that since the 1950s the US tax system has shifted dramatically toward being regressive. Here's David Leonhardt's shorter version of their argument with cool animated graphics. But not everyone agrees and those differences can't be traced just to ideology. Here's a thread from Jason Furman, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under Obama debating Zucman on methodology and interpretation. Here's David Splinter with a more in-depth analysis illustrating why Saez and Zucman get such different numbers than the traditional approaches to analyzing progressivity.
Meanwhile, there is an entirely different question about whether taxes can be used to effectively address inequality (Saez and Zucman's book is all about how the wealthy evade taxes). There's a new NBER paper on the response of rich taxpayers to an increase in the California tax rate. It finds that just under 1% of those subject to the higher taxes moved out of state, and those who stayed found ways to avoid the tax, so that total income from the tax was about half of what it would have been otherwise. Here's Lyman Stone's Twitter summary.
It's not clear how to think about that 50% cut in additional revenue: on the one hand, there is a big increase in tax collection, on the other hand you have to expect that over time people are going to get even better at evading the tax. Here's Lily Batchelder and David Kamin with a comprehensive review of wealth taxation in implementation with hope that wealth taxes can work.
Week of August 16, 2019
1. The Great (Household Finance) Convergence: I've been teasing this for awhile and now it's finally out: my essay for Aspen's Financial Security Program laying out the convergence between the US and developing, especially middle-income, countries especially when it comes to financial inclusion. The essay also highlights areas where mutual learning and collaboration should prove particularly fruitful. While you're there check out the rest of Aspen FSP's work on financial inclusion and keep an eye out for my next essay on "Reinvigorating the Financial Inclusion Agenda" (or, y'know, just wait until it shows up in the faiV; or you could check out this piece I did for CDC (UK) on the value of investing in financial system development).
Now the work for that essay was done a while ago, but the evidence for the convergence thesis (and it's related "corrupted economy" thesis) keeps coming. The past few weeks there were several stories in this vein. For instance, the growing number of American families relying on debt to pay their bills. Sorry, I meant the growing number of Russian families relying on debt to pay their bills. Sorry, I meant the growing number of post-retirement Americans relying on debt to pay their bills and being forced into bankruptcy.
2. Moving to Convergence?/Evidence-Based Policy: Here's a different area of convergence--my interests in the Great Convergence and in evidence-based policy in general and the RCT movement in particular. Part of the argument of the Great Convergence/Corrupted Economy is that the bottom 40% of the American income distribution faces an economy characterized by limited opportunity, with poor jobs, poor education, poor healthcare and housing that closely resembles the economies of middle-income countries. Escaping from these circumstances requires something akin to winning the lottery (Oh, did you hear about Virginia's new program for automatic purchases of lottery tickets? Set it and forget it!). People do win, but it's hard to justify the mental, physical, emotional and economic investment in hard work and building human capital when you are facing a lottery economy (and frequently witness things like this which don't seem to horrify very many people beyond Paddy Carter).
Perhaps you heard about or read the new paper from Chetty et al. on an experiment to revive the Moving to Opportunity program that showed next-generation benefits(but not much in terms of short-term benefits) from moving from poor neighborhoods to wealthier neighborhoods. The results from the experiment were met with a good bit of enthusiasm--here's Nick Kristof, and here's Dylan Matthews.
But the whole thing leaves me pretty uncomfortable for four reasons. One, the whole thing really is a lottery. Jake Vigdor does a good job in this thread of laying out the issues. First, the underlying program is literally a lottery. In fact, all housing assistance in Seattle is the functional equivalent of lottery. So to benefit from the program you would have had to win the lottery of applying for housing assistance at the right time, when there were slots open, and then when the lottery to get one of these vouchers specifically for this type of move.
Second, the program isn't an anti-poverty program as they are traditionally conceived of--it's a test of a program to encourage people who win the double lottery to follow through and actually move to higher-income neighborhood. It turns out that a remarkably small number of people who get housing vouchers like this actually use them--see above on the difficulty of motivating action in a lottery economy. The program works on its own terms--it significantly increases the percentage of people who actually move. But the anti-poverty effects in the theory of change won't be felt until the children of these movers become adults--at least 10 to 15 years from now.
Which raises the third issue. To really consider this an anti-poverty success you have to believe that the things that made the high-income neighborhoods in Seattle good for generational mobility 20 years ago, remain true today, AND that the labor market faced by today's kids will be same in 10 to 15 years further into the future. Those seem to me to be large assumptions.
It's not just that they seem so, the fourth reason is that they are large assumptions. Because the underlying mechanisms that lead to next-generation income mobility haven't been identified in any meaningful way. Other work by Chetty et al has documented the clear existence of high-mobility and low-mobility neighborhoods in the US--that work is a big part of what informs my views on the Great Convergence/Corrupted Economy. But it doesn't make it clear why the good neighborhoods are good, and therefore you have to believe that those factors are invariant over time, which maybe you shouldn't.
Here's the connection to evidence-based policy, and the fourth : this work and the reactions to it seem to me to be a much clearer example of the criticisms of RCTs by folks like Lant Pritchett, Angus Deaton, Glenn Harrison and Martin Ravallion than anything I've seen in the economic development space. You've got black boxes, large unexamined assumptions, a suspension of disbelief due to the methodology, and ultimately the possibility of gains so small (e.g. once you narrow from the winners of the lottery to the people who follow through to the kids who benefit; and all of this is just in one county in the whole country) that you should say, "so what?" instead of cheering.
By the way if you're interested in a different critique of this body of work, and other takes on economic mobility in the US, check out this thread from Scott Winship.
Wrapping up on the evidence-based policy front, it turns out that policy-makers have a lot of behavioral biases.
Week of July 12, 2019
1. Research, Evidence, Policy and Politicians: We talk a lot around here about evidence-based policy and often about the political economy of adopting evidence-based policies. In the last faiV I featured some of the first evidence that elected officials (in this case 2000+ Brazilian mayors) are interested in evidence and will adopt policies when they are shown evidence that they work.
Far be it from me to let such encouraging news linger too long. Here's a new study on American legislators (oddly also 2000+ of them) that finds that 89% of them were uninterested in learning more about their constituents opinions even after extensive encouragement, and of those that did access the information, the legislators didn't update their beliefs about constituent opinions. Here's the NY Times Op-Ed by the study authors.
But wait, there's more! In another newly published study using Twitter data on American congresspeople, Barera et al. find that politicians follow rather than lead interest in public issues. But also that politicians are more responsive to their supporters than to general interest. Which perhaps goes some way to explaining the seeming contradictions between these two studies: American legislators are not interested in accurate data on all of their constituents' opinions, but will follow the opinions of their most vocal supporters.
2. Research Reliability: Two studies of the same population finding at least nominally opposing things published in the same week is kind of unusual, shining a brighter light on the question of research reliability than there normally is. But there have been plenty of other recent instances of the reliability of research being called into question for lots of different reasons:
* The difference between self-reported income and administrative data: the widely known finding that Americans living in extreme poverty (below $2 a day) was based on self-reported income. Re-running that analysis with administrative data that presumably does a better job of capturing access to benefits and other sources of income and wealth finds that only .11 percent of the population actually has incomes this low, and most are childless adults. Here's a Vox write-up of the findings and issues.
* A "pop" book on marriage from an academic claimed that most married women were secretly desperately unhappy. But that's because he misunderstood the survey data, believing that the code "spouse not present" meant that the husband was not in the room when the question was answered, when it really means that the spouse has moved out. Again, Vox does some good work explicating the specifics and the context: most books aren't meaningfully peer reviewed.
* But you probably should be very skeptical of any research on happiness regardless of whether it's peer reviewed because "the necessary conditions for...identification..are unlikely to ever be satisfied."
* And you should be skeptical of many papers studying the persistence of economic phenomena over time, and spatial regressions in general because of the possibility of inflated significance that is really just noise.
* You should also perhaps be skeptical of any claims based on Big 5 personality traits outside of WEIRD countries because the results are not stable across time or interviewers.
* And there are still a lot of issues with the applications of statistical techniques across the social sciences, including, for instance, the misapplication and misinterpretation of RDD designs, or conditioning on post-treatment variables (that's a paper from last year that finds 40% of experiments published in top 6 Political Science journals show evidence of doing so), or using estimated effect sizes to do ex post power calculations.
* Or this Twitter thread about a series of papers published in top medical journals that defies description, other than you really have to read it.
It's enough to make you despair.
Week of April 26, 2019
1. Household Finance: I'm as surprised as anyone that this piece I wrote on the waste of time and money that is mandatory financial literacy classes in the Washington Post seems to be getting as much traction as it is. It's the closest I've ever come to going viral on Twitter (if you want to, here's the tweet just ready and waiting for you to retweet and further drive up those numbers). The comments, by the way, are about what you would expect--and further evidence for Morgan Housel's "you have to live it to believe it" thesis on perspectives of finance. I'm not the only one banging the drum against financial literacy classes: here's Jen Tescher of CFSI imploring banks to stop funding finlit classes and focus on tools that actually help customers.
One of the likely reasons (but certainly not the only one!) that finlit makes such little difference is the mismatch between what is taught and the actual financial lives of most households. Take for instance figuring out income taxes in the new economy. Most people in the US got a tax cut in 2018 but most of those think their taxes actually went up, because the connection between taxes and paychecks is so damned complicated in the US. And trying to figure it out if you're a contractor rather than an employee...
There is something worse than legislators mandating financial literacy. Intuit engaged in shockingly (even for cynical me) deceptive behavior by tricking people into using their paid product rather than the free product that they were eligible for--even going so far as to make sure that search engines didn't index the web page to use their regulatorily mandated free file service so it was for all intents and purposes invisible. No amount of financial literacy is going to fix that. If you were thinking that this sort of behavior was exactly why the CFPB was created you would be right, but since Mick Mulvaney has destroyed the agency, don't expect any meaningful action against Intuit.
This isn't just a US problem. This sort of thing--hiding the information customers need to make good financial decisions--happens everywhere. Think of the changes in transparency of pricing of M-Pesa. Or this audit study by Xavi Gine and Rafe Mazer finding bank personnel in Ghana, Mexico and Peru don't tell customers about the best account for them (the customers that is). This seems like the right time to bang on one of my pet drums: middle-income countries, look to the US to the see the future of your financial system and tremble.
Looking from the other side, the US has a lot to learn from international contexts about how households manage volatile financial lives. Stuart Rutherford has a fantastic write-up of the 3 years of ups-and-downs and coping strategies of a family in the Hrishapara Financial Diaries. Stop what you're doing and read it. But let me also call-out that Stuart is now funding the Hrishipara diaries out of his own pocket. Any funder who is reading this: send Stuart some money to keep up this remarkable work. Please.
My friends at the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program have a new report on short-term financial stability and how important it is for any larger goals, based on the work of a number of organizations focused on the issue (NB: I'm a senior fellow of Aspen FSP and was involved in the early discussions that led to this report). Before you international folks keep scrolling...there is a lot of overlap between the insights here and the situation in middle-income and developing countries. And you could easily frame it in the same way that most on the international scene do: the importance of building resilience to shocks.
2. Financial Inclusion: I'm one of the retrogrades who refuses to give up on the term "financial inclusion" (while acknowledging the points made by advocates of "financial security" and "financial health"). Speaking of retrogrades, Matthew Soursourian at CGAP is even more retrograde than I am, making an argument that "access" is important and we shouldn't fetishize "usage." One of the reasons is that usage may be harmful--and Greta Bull argues that we need to talk about that, particularly around credit. Over at Next Billion, Graham Wright of MSC (formerly MicroSave--apparently I'm also retrograde in not changing FAI's name), has some speculation on the next 20 years in financial inclusion (which I take as explicit endorsement for "inclusion" whether Graham meant it or not). One of his key points is on the issue of consumer protection, which in addition to dovetailing with Greta's post, allows me to point out that in every other domain the word "inclusion" means fair and equitable participation and so we should make that part of the defacto definition of financial inclusion. Drawing things fully back to Matthew's post, the one thing I think he misses in the argument for access is network effects. The value of an account has a lot to do with who else has and uses accounts and we should expect usage to trail substantially behind access especially when less than, say, 60% of people have accounts.
Two quick hits on China and financial inclusion: Here's a piece that argues that China's "social credit score" is less coherent and more complex than it is usually portrayed. But then at the Avengers:End Game premiere, one of the trailers was a public shaming of delinquent debtors. I don't know if that's confirmatory or contradictory evidence.
Finally, there is a lot to learn from the history of financial systems and the way they include and exclude. Rebecca Spang reviews a new book (The Promise and Peril of Credit--which would have been a great title for Greta's post--by Francesca Trivellato) about the development of financial instruments in Europe and anti- and philo-semitism and how it shaped economies.
Week of March 8, 2019
1. The OGs: I can't think about who influences me without beginning with Esther Duflo, Erica Field, Rohini Pande, Tavneet Suri (special links to two new papers that would have been in the faiV in a normal week--on the impact of digital credit in Kenya, and UBI in developing countries) and Rachel Glennerster.
2. New Views on Microcredit: Because I'm framing this around research that has influenced me and appeared in the faiV, I've organized these into topical buckets that make sense to me. But keep in mind, that may not be the only thing these economists work on. Cynthia Kinnan and Emily Breza have dug into the Spandana RCT to understand heterogeneity of results, and to used the AP repayment crisis and fallout to understand the general equilibrium effects of microcredit. Natalia Rigol with some of the OGs above followed up on the differential returns to capital between men and women from earlier studies finding the differences are largely due to intrahousehold allocation, not gender; she's also looked into how to better target microcredit to high-ability borrowers. Gisella Kagy and Morgan Hardy uncoverbarriers that women-owned microenterprises face. Rachael Meager creatively usesstatistical techniques to better understand heterogeneity in microcredit impact results. Isabelle Guerin provides insight on why microcredit can go wrong.
3. Savings: I will confess that I have a lot of questions about the savings literature. But that's mainly because of the work of these economists. Pascaline Dupas, of course. Silvia Prina tests encouraging savings in Nepal, while Lore Vandewalle tries to build savings habits in India. Jessica Goldberg runs very creative experiments to understand how savings affects decisions. Simone Schaner studies intrahousehold choices around savings.
Week of January 21, 2019
1. MicroDigitalFinance: Many of you will be familiar with the story of microcredit's rise and sort-of fall, and it's current state of--I don't know, existential angst? But if not, the story is ably told in a new Vox piece by Stephanie Wykstra, with some comments from Jonathan and I included. Not too long after that, the Campbell Collaborative and 3ie issued a "systematic review of reviews" of the impact of financial inclusion, led by Maren Duvendack. I have to say it's kind of weird. The one sentence conclusion is "Financial inclusion interventions have very small and inconsistent impacts." Which apart from appending an "s" to the perfectly plural "impact", I don't disagree with. But this format is a review of reviews which imposes some weird constraints. Ultimately only 11 of 32 identified studies were included, and only one of those was from an economics journal, two are earlier Campbell or 3ie publications, two are specifically only about women's empowerment, and three are about strangely specific topics like HIV prevention. So I'm left really uncertain what to think of it.
Of course, the hot topic isn't generic microfinance but digital finance. The Partnership for Finance in a Digital Africa has an updated "evidence gap map" of research on the impact of digital finance featuring 55 studies (which is more than I have had the time to delve into so I can't compare it to the Campbell/3ie inclusion set). There's a summary of the findings at Next Billion.
Finally, here's an interesting story about Econet, the Zimbabwean mobile money provider--interesting in that it is really about the evolution of mobile money providers from following M-Pesa to following Tencent.
2. US Inequality: A big part of the story of understanding US inequality specifically, and inequality in developed countries in general, is understanding what has happened to wages of low-skill workers. The NYTimes has a piece on how cities have shifted from being the "land of opportunity" for such workers to a trap, based on work that David Autor presented in his Ely Lecture at the AEAs (by the way, AEA, it's still a good time to rename the Ely Lecture!).
One policy option for addressing stagnant wages for low-skill workers is to raise the minimum wage. Cengiz, Dube, Lindner and Zipperer continue their long-running work on the effects of 138 minimum wage changes between 1979 and 2016. They find increased earnings and essentially no effect on number of low-wage jobs.
That's encouraging. Less encouraging is a new paper from Rodrik and di Tella finding that people are really, really happy to support protectionist policies, regardless of their politics, as a policy response to trade shocks.
3. Our Algorithmic Overlords: Speaking of people's attitudes, there's a big new report on Americans' attitudes on artificial intelligence from something called the Future of Humanity Institute, which as a name is somewhat creepy in my opinion. Maybe I've seen/read too much dystopian fiction. Anyway, they find that Facebook is the least trusted institution when it comes to AI development (no surprise) and the US military is tied for most trusted (big surprise, apparently these people haven't seen/read the same dystopian fiction I have). Also of interest, the median respondent thinks there's a 50% chance that robots will be able to fully replace human beings in less than 10 years. And just because, here's a Night Before Christmas style poem about the future of AI.
Week of January 7, 2019
1. The History of Banking: For a project I'm working on I've been thinking a lot about financial system development and have gotten a bit obsessed with the history of banking. You might think that with a topic so core to economic thinking there would be some consensus on things like what banks do and how they came to do them. But you would be wrong. I've had great fun reading conflicting accounts of the history of banking in the US and Germany over the last few weeks. At the AEA exhibit floor I stumbled on a new book about the history of banking in France, Dark Matter Credit. The short version is that informal banking was a massive part of the French economy, and worked better in many ways than French banks until World War I, and it took regulation to finally allow formal banks to displace the informal system. I also picked up Lending to the Borrower from Hell and just in the first few pages discovered that Italian "friars, widows and orphans" were buying syndicated loans to Charles the II of Spain in 1595. The bottom line is that informal finance was much more efficient and "thick" than I believed, and formal banking extended much further much earlier than I had known. There's also a new book on banking crises in the US before the Federal Reserve, Fighting Financial Crises, which is equally relevant to thinking about the much-more-grey-than-you-would-think borderland between formal and informal banking.
To tie this all more specifically to the AEA meetings than just what was on display at the book vendors' booths, one of my favorite sessions was Economics with Ancient Data. Though I'll confess I'm not sure whether to be heartened that things we are doing now can have persistent effects for thousands of years, or depressed that our present was determined by choices thousands of years ago.
2. MicroDigitalHouseholdFinance: There was of course a number of new(ish) papers on our favorite topics, further condensed here. Here's the session on financial innovation in developing countries and one specifically focused on South Asia. Some of these papers have appeared in recent editions of the faiV already, but I want to call out a couple specifically. Microcredit, I've argued, is in dire need of innovation. So I'm always pleased when I see papers on innovation in the core product terms, like this paper from India on allowing flexible repayment, and while it wasn't at AEA,this one in Bangladesh. In both cases, allowing borrowers to skip payments results in higher repayment rates and better business outcomes. I see these as part of an evolving understanding that microcredit is a liquidity-management product, not an investment product. Credit can also be a risk-management product, as long as you know it's going to be there when you need it. That's the story of this paper on guaranteed loans for borrowers in the event of a flood (in Bangladesh). Another cool innovation in microcredit. Of course, the next question is who is going to insure the MFI so that it has the liquidity to make good on emergency loan promises?
There was a session titled "Shaping Norms" that I almost missed out on because of the somewhat oblique title. There were some very interesting papers here on how household preferences get formed, and how they can be changed, including longer-term data on the experiment in Ethiopia that I think of as launching the "changing aspirations" theme that we see more and more of.
I was amused that there were simultaneous sessions on "Finance and Development" and "Financial Development" but the poor Chinese student beside me was very confused as apparently the translations in the official app did a poor job of differentiating between the two. Both had interesting papers, but I found this on the sale of a credit card portfolio from a department store to a bank (which has access to more credit bureau data) in Chile, and this on bank specialization in export markets particularly interesting.
But moving outside of the AEA realm, my confirmation bias prevents me from not including two other related items on Household Finance. First, Matthew Soursourian of CGAP has some pointed questions about the usefulness of "financial health" as a concept, questions I thoroughly endorse. Second, there is documentary evidence (for instance, here) that I've long been skeptical of the story about mothers in developing countries caring about their children while fathers don't. I find it more than vaguely racist as these stories typically only involve countries where the majority of fathers are black or brown. Anyway, at long last someone, specifically Kathryn Moeller, tried to track down one of the more common statistics on women spending more money on children and found that there is no source, and it was apparently made up as part of a marketing campaign. But that's just the start. Seth Gitter links to three studies that find no difference in investment in children (and I'll add the Spandana impact evaluation to his list) and Martin Ravallion points out that the "70% of world's poor are women" stat seems equally unsourced.
3. Entrepreneurship, Reluctant and Otherwise: Overall, the paper that left me thinking the most is a long-term update to the Blattman and Dercon experiment randomizing employment at factories in Ethiopia. If you need a catch-up, the original experiment had three arms: control, a $300 cash grant plus business training and a job in a "sweatshop"-type factory. While there were positive effects for the entrepreneurship group, the jobs didn't improve income and had negative effects on physical health. After five years, all the differences dissipate (hours worked, income, health, occupational choice). Pause to think about that for a moment--after several years of higher incomes from entrepreneurship, the average person in that arm shut down their business. And the control group started microenterprises and got factory jobs (filling the gaps left by the treatment arm participants who dropped out?). It's another piece of a growing puzzle about why microenterprises don't grow, or more specifically why people don't seem to invest in their microenterprises, even when the income is higher than the alternatives. Stuart Rutherford has been thinking about that too, and because it's Stuart, he went out and interviewed participants in the Hrishipara Diaries to try to get some answers.
Week of December 10, 2018
1. Targeting: I intended for the faiVLive conversation to spend more time on targeting than we did--it's a sort of rushed conversation at the end. Targeting is something that I've been thinking about a lot, but I'm not sure what I think yet. So forgive me for just ruminating on a few things here.
The whole concept of microcredit is based on targeting--every lender has to target not only those interested in taking a loan but those interested in repaying a loan. Hand-in-hand with targeting repayers was targeting borrowers who were "entrepreneurs," people who would start a business, since the belief was a new microenterprise was the only plausible way for these very poor households to repay. But since the rhetoric emphasized that the poor were natural entrepreneurs, targeting repayers substituted 1:1 for targeting entrepreneurs. Given the findings of microcredit impact studies--namely that while average impact is minimal, there are people who see large gains--the focus on targeting has returned. See for instance, asking middle men who the best farmers are, or surveying other microenterprises.
But if your aim is reducing poverty, then you have to care about more than just finding the borrowers who will repay and have the highest returns on capital--you have to care about equity as well and the effect on, or exclusion of, the poorest or least able to generate high returns. Earlier this year I linked to a paper by Hanna and Olken on the equity effects of targeted transfers vs. UBI. Here's an interview with the two that summarizes their findings: for most poor countries, targeted transfers far outperform a UBI in terms of total welfare. And by the way, here's new Banerjee et al paper from Indonesia showing limited distortions from proxy-means tests.
Of course, in targeting microcredit we are doing the opposite essentially: looking for a proxy-means test to exclude the least-able to generate high returns. What effects might that have? If we boost market efficiency, it could be good for most everyone. That's not just theoretical--here's an empirical finding from Jensen and Miller on improving market efficiency in Kerala boat-building finding higher aggregate quality, lower production costs and lower quality-adjusted prices. But maybe not. That paper above on using middle-men to target finds that traditional allocation of loans does better for the poorest. And as we discussed on the faiVLive conversation, there can be systematic differences in market structure that limits who can generate high returns (in this case, among women seamstresses in Ghana). It's why I worry about what exactly is being measured in targeting algorithms like EFL/Lenddo.
The possible gains and losses have to be measured against the cost of targeting. The cost of microcredit as it exists, without targeting, is pretty low. The median subsidy per loan is about $25, not much for spreading access to the liquidity management features of microcredit well beyond those with high returns to capital. And then there is reason to think about the effect of greater targeting on the microfinance business model. Here is one of the few economics papers to make me actually angry, suggesting that microcredit contracts were purposefully designed to limit the growth of borrower's businesses. While I wholly reject that claim, the underlying idea is worth considering: microcredit's low relative costs are based on a mass-lending business model and MFIs have largely failed to find a way to compete higher up the banking value chain. Altering that business model could have unintended consequences. That's not just based on that paper. As I mentioned last week, City of Debtors, a book about small sum lending in New York City during the 20th century confirms the business model problem is real and pervasive.
So I don't really know what I think. I'll keep thinking about it, but as always I appreciate your thoughts if you're willing to share them.
2. US Inequality: I haven't covered US Inequality for several weeks, and so things have been building up. And there's been a whole lot of new stuff in the last few weeks. Let's start with the state of median US income over the last 30 years. The widely held current view is that incomes for all but the top quintile or decile have been stagnant. But that's heavily dependent on all the adjustments that need to be made for taxes, transfers, inflation and innovation. Stephen Rose at the Urban Institute summarizes the past and new work trying to measure changes in median income, and then writes in more detail about the methodological issues. One thing that had particularly slipped by me: Picketty, Saez and Zucman have a newish paper updating the famous results that showed stagnation and find median incomes have increased about 30% over the last 30 years. That shifts the proportion of gains by the top decile from around 90% to around 50% (I'm intentionally rounding these numbers because they are so sensitive to methodological choices, that I think we're all better off not reporting precise numbers because of the illusion of certainty that goes along with them). Perhaps one of the reasons that these new findings didn't seem to get as much attention as the idea of stagnation for the middle class, is that the new paper also finds that stagnation is true for the bottom 50% of the income distribution.
This week the US Census also released it's "Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates" for 2017, with county-level data on incomes and poverty rates. They find that over the last 10 years, median incomes in 80% of US counties were unchanged, with 11% of counties seeing an increase and 8% seeing a decrease. When you look at the maps, it's apparent that a majority of the counties seeing an increase are related to the fracking boom (and thus mostly in places with very few people). On the poverty front, there's a whole lot of stagnation too, with almost 90% of counties seeing no change, but 8% seeing an increase and only 3% seeing a decrease. Not an encouraging picture.
Whenever you talk about incomes and poverty, it's worthwhile to think about the definition of poverty. Here's Noah Smith on updating the definition of poverty to include volatility (though he shockingly fails to mention the US Financial Diaries). And here's Angus Deaton on "How America poverty became fake news"--with some more methodological detail and the horrid engagement of the present administration with international attempts to measure poverty.
There's plenty new on the policy front as well. Here's a new paper estimating the total budget effect of the EITC--finding that the program self-finances 87% of its cost by reducing use of other transfer programs and increasing taxes collected. And here's The Hamilton Project on the work histories of people receiving SNAP and Medicaid benefits, finding that the majority are working, but irregularly and a substantial portion would "fail to consistently meet a 20 hour per week-threshold" because their hours worked vary so much from week-to-week.
Week of December 3, 2018
1. faiVLive Background: The motivation for the faiVLive experiment is discussing what to think about microcredit impact given all the research in recent years. If you can't make it, or if you can, here's your quick cheat sheet to the recent research.
Of course it's starts with the average impact of microcredit being very modest. A Bayesian Hierarchical model look at the data confirms those findings. But there is important heterogeneity hidden within those average effects--"gung-ho" microborrowers do see substantial gains from increased access to credit. It's also true that these are mostly studies of expanding access to formal credit, not introducing it. That's hard to measure, but we can get a cleaner view of the value of credit when it gets taken away from most everyone--and that shows significant benefits, though through a somewhat unexpected channel: casual labor wages. Changes in labor wages can matter a lot for understanding the impact of a program, even entirely masking any benefits of an intervention with evidence that it makes a substantial difference in many contexts. And it's clear that changes in labor supply are quickly passed through into labor rates--in this case, the markets seem to be working fairly well. But it's not just labor markets. When microcredit affects local markets--by increasing or decreasing the supply of tradeable goods--the benefits may be substantial but mostly captured by the people who aren't using microcredit (what economists call general equilibrium effects). Which makes it all the more important to understand local market dynamics, especially when in many cases microenterprises are operating in sectors where supply exceeds demand. That being said, microcredit is a cheap intervention relative to other options. And it's possible we could increase the returns to microcredit for more reluctant microenterprise operators by boosting their aspirations. Or perhaps by doing better targeting of lending. But is it worth targeting? Households do seem to do a pretty good job of allocating access to capital to its most productive use within the household, and the gung-ho entrepreneurs are benefiting even without the expense of targeting.
2. MicroDigitalFinance and Household Finance: I suppose all of the above would qualify here as well, but here's a bunch of different new stuff, starting with the digital side of things. There are two new papers about the effects of SMEs adopting digital payments. In Kenya, an encouragement intervention led to 78% of treated restaurants and 28% of pharmacies adopting Lipa Na m-Pesa, and consequent increases in access to credit. In Mexico, a different kind of encouragement--the government distributed massive numbers of debit cards as part of the Progresa program--led small retailers to adopt POS terminals. That led to wealthier customers shifting some of their purchasing to these smaller retailers, and increased sales and profits for the retailers, but not an increase in employees or wages paid. On a side note, it's curious that the smaller shock of debit card distribution (pushing debit card ownership to 54% of households) had a large effect on retailers but the larger shock of m-Pesa being adopted by practically everyone has not led to more Lipa Na m-Pesa adoption.
A few weeks ago I featured a puzzle in savings from two savings encouragement experiments--the encouragement worked but savings plateau at a level well below what would seem optimal. Isabelle Guerin sent me a couple of papers that I'm still reviewing that might help explain why, but this week I stumbled across another example. The US CFPB, back in the days when it was allowed to do stuff and wasn't a hollow shell of existential dread, ran an experiment using American Express Serve cards and the "Reserve" functionality. They find that encouraging savings works--people boost their savings--but that the savings plateau after the 12 week encouragement and stay at roughly the same level for 16 months. That's consistent with the results from India and Chile but not with a model of accumulating lump sums or precautionary savings. You would expect among this population that they would experience a shock in that 16 month period and draw down the savings. Participants say they reduce payday loan use, but frankly I don't believe any claims about payday behavior that isn't based on administrative data (and it doesn't make sense if balances were stable).
And finally because I want to encourage this behavior, Maria May sent me an interesting new paper on offering microcredit borrowers flexibility in repayment--customers get two "skip payment" coupons to use during the term of their 12 month loan cycle. Consistent with the much earlier work from Field et al, it yields more investment from borrowers, better outcomes and lower defaults.
3. Evidence-Based Policy: I noted last week that GiveWell, where I have served on the board since it's founding, released it's Top Charity recommendations. One of those is GiveDirectly. GiveWell, as is it's wont, wrote up some details of it's analysis of GiveDirectly, particularly about spillovers from cash transfers. That analysis was significantly informed by a forthcoming paper on general equilibrium effects and spillovers from one of GiveDirectly's programs that GiveWell was given access to even though it is not yet public. Berk Ozler took issue with that. And GiveWell responded. I have nothing whatsoever to do with GiveWell's research process or conclusions, but I was heavily involved advising GiveWell on its response to Berk's questions.
Week of November 26, 2018
1. faiVYourJMP: Let's start there with a paper from Ryan Edwards on palm oil plantation expansion in Indonesia. That he finds trade-offs certainly shouldn't be surprising, much less astounding, but it is surprising how well he documents how the growth of export-led agriculture reduces poverty and increases consumption--including the specific channels by which that happens--and the connection to deforestation. Specifically, "each percentage point of poverty reduction corresponds to a 1.5-3 percentage point loss of forest area." Put another way, it's astounding to be able to see the price of poverty reduction outside of a carefully designed cash-based experiment.
And let me give a shout out to the Development Impact Blog team at the World Bank who were the inspiration to do this. Their crop of "Blog your JMP" posts is growing by the day and includes many entries worthy of your attention.
2. MicroDigitalFinance: Here's an astounding story about predatory lending and debt collection in New York (and from there, across the US). And I don't care how cynical you are, this is stunning because it's perfectly legal--so legal that there are registered investment companies gathering capital in public markets to do more of it.
That story then led me, via Rebecca Spang, to a book that came out at the beginning of this year that I'm embarrassed that I didn't know about, City of Debtors: A Century of Fringe Finance by Anne Fleming. It tells the story of small dollar credit in New York City and the attempts to regulate it and protect consumers, with lots of unintended consequences along the way. Although I've only begun to read it, what's astounding is how easily, if you changed the names of places and people, you could convince someone this was a book about modern microfinance. There's one chapter that could easily be pasted into Portfolios of the Poor with no one the wiser. Fleming is a law professor, and so she doesn't make the connection to the economics literature, past or present (at least that I've seen so far), which is frustrating but also assuages my guilt at being unaware of the book. Anyway, if you care about financial services for low-income households, regulation and/or consumer protection, you need to pick up this book.
It would be easy to make a snide and cliche comment about those who cannot learn from history, but is too much to ask to learn from present in other places? Here's a story about "neo-banks" in the US attempting to remake the banking industry, while confronting the hard reality that even without a physical presence, the margins on transactional accounts are razor thin. But, like Fleming's book, it's easy to read this as a story about how banks and MFIs are struggling to cope with the threat of digital financial services being provided by telecom firms which are built on a high-volume, low-margin business model.
That is a major theme of the e-MFPs new report on trends in microfinance/financial inclusion, released this week. It's the output of a survey of providers, funders, consultants and researchers on where the industry is headed. I was encouraged to read that other major challenges noted include "client protection, privacy...and preventing an erosion of the social focus of financial inclusion...in the face of new entrants." I'm betting those aren't on the list of very many people in the fintech/neobank space in the US.
Finally here's a story from September that somehow slipped by me: Kiva is working with the government of Sierra Leone to use blockchain to create a national ID/credit bureau. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one but it definitely seems like the kind of thing that would benefit from and generate lots of opportunities to learn from other places. If any of the faiV readers at Kiva want to share more, please call me.
3. MicroSmallMediumFirms: I'm often frustrated that I don't get to spend more time thinking about firms--those of you who know me know I've been wanting to start a project on "subsistence retail" for years. Hope springs eternal--maybe next year is the year I get to do that.
But in the meantime, here's a job market paper from Gabriel Tourek featured on Development Impact that finds an astounding reaction to a tax cut in Rwanda: the firms pay more even though they owe less. What's going on?
First Week of May, 2018
1. Microfinance, Part I (Uses of Credit): For the first time in forever, it seems there's enough new and interesting stuff on microfinance to support not only one, but a couple multiple-link items. Let's start with a useful piece that summarizes findings from several studies that have loomed large in our understanding (or questions about) of how microenterprises use credit, and apparent differences between male-owned and female-owned enterprises. I do find the framing a bit odd, as I don't know anyone who interpreted the results as "women aren't as good at running microenterprises as men" rather than, "women tend to be constrained to operating microenterprises in less profitable industries." When the newer results from Bernhardt, Field, Pande and Rigol emerged, I think the standard take was, "Households optimally allocate credit to their highest-return enterprise." So I think the intriguing thing here is not "women vs men entrepreneurs" but "maybe the industries women are concentrated in aren't less profitable after all." And that makes me think back to a paper from AEA (there's no version online that I can find, but this seems to be a significantly revised version using the same data) finding that female tailors in Ghana earn less than male tailors because they are constrained to making womens' clothes, a sector where there is more competition and lower prices.
Another use of credit for poor households is not to invest in a microenterprise but to smooth consumption when income is seasonal (or volatile for other reasons). Here's a new paper from Fink, Jack, and Masiye examining that dynamic in rural Zambia. Providing credit during the lean season affects the labor market, allowing liquidity-constrained farmers to avoid wage labor for their comparatively less-constrained neighbors, and pushes up wages. The intriguing thing here is another piece of evidence on the general equilibrium effects of microcredit via commodity (in this case, labor) markets.
2. Microfinance, Part II (Everything Else): Well, not everything else, see item 4. Access to credit and other financial services is a tricky thing--and it's not just the financial system that affects it, the justice system, criminal and civil, matters a lot too. Here's a new paper on alternative credit scoring using digital footprints--I haven't read it yet but am generally very skeptical of things like this. Grassroots Capital and CGAP are hosting a webinar on May 15th under the heading "Microfinance: Revolution or Footnote?" based on a conference last year (full disclosure, I was a participant). Of course, now I would want it to be called "Revolution, Footnote, or General Equilibrium Effects Eat Us All in the Long Run?" And applications are open for the 2018 European Microfinance Awards (until May 23) with the theme "Inclusive Finance through Technology." Whoever said the faiV didn't have news you could use?
3. Methods/Statistics/Etc: Here's even more service journalism: A tool that will convert charts into data points automatically. I actually expect this to be the most clicked link in the history of the faiV. RAs, the robots are coming for your jobs sooner than you think.
Does everyone who cares about statistics read Andrew Gelman's blog regularly? Just in case, there were several posts recently that drew my attention. One is a fairly-standard-but-always-useful post about a specific example of dubious practices, on early childhood education (which morphs into some commentary on how the field of economics deals with these issues with a bonus appearance from Guido Imbens in the comments); another is a pointer to a new paper that tries to avoid some of the more dubious practices on a topic of a lot of interest and a lot of noise--the relationship of macro-growth and child development. But the most interesting is a post about how economists tend to see the world, specifically explaining why apparent bad behavior is good, and apparent good behavior is bad. Behavior in the economics profession is the best segue I can find into this short (audio) interview with Claudia Goldin.
But back to the use and misuse of metrics and statistics. If you don't click on anything else under this item, I do think you should look at these last two links. First, a thread about how most of the world thinks about statistics--as a tool for arriving at the answer you're looking for. And a column from Justin Fox on how pro- and anti-metrics authors end up in basically the same place--measurement is hard, and is only useful if you put the effort into doing it right.
Week of April 9, 2018
1. Global Development: Hey, does anybody remember the Millennium Villages Project? It seems an age ago in terms of development fads, now that we're all focused on cash grants and graduation programs, and according to some papers would fall into the "long-run" category. Andrew Gelman has a post about a new retrospective evaluation of the program (that he participated in), including a link to an evaluation of the evaluation. The results are surprisingly good, given what I expect most people's priors were at this point. Though I suppose the TUP evaluations should perhaps have shifted those priors in a positive direction. I guess I'm kind of surprised that the results don't seem to have gotten the attention I would have predicted. Of course, I don't think anyone has argued that the MVP should be a model for other programs since Nina Munk's book, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.
Lant Pritchett has a list of six other things in development that people aren't paying (enough) attention to, mostly variations on the continuing large gap between even the lower part of the income distribution in rich countries and the upper part of the distribution in poor countries.
Lant's first point is about the huge gains from moving. Here's a piece from a few weeks ago about the lack of geographic mobility, specifically rural to urban migration, in the United States where the overall tone is exasperation at these benighted people who stay in small towns (and ruin things for everyone else; it's an interview with Robert Wuthnow about his new book). It caught my eye because I can't imagine something like this being written about rural people in developing countries (without touching off a lot of blowback). But perhaps we should see more stuff like this about all forms of poor-to-rich geographic mobility. Speaking of those rural people, here's a new paper from Marc Bellemare about one of the dynamics that may be keeping the poorest people in rural areas (at least in Madagascar)--the intensification of income from agriculture.
2. Jobs: Last week I linked to the recent study of scheduling practices at The Gap that found that encouraging managers to set more stable schedules for retail employees led to higher productivity and sales for the firm. The exact mechanism for increased sales isn't completely clear, but it appears that managers shifted hours to more experienced workers, who unsurprisingly were more productive. While the study is encouraging overall--stable schedules are better for (most) workers and for employers--it also has a dark tinge. To see why, consider this Atlantic article about the future of jobs at Walmart (which, to its great credit, was well ahead of The Gap in experimenting with more stable schedules for its hourly workers, and other efforts to stabilize workers income). The macro trend is toward fewer jobs, at least in terms of how we used to define that term, for less-skilled and less-experienced employees, and declining job quality for those people. That's been happening at many companies (think of outsourcing of janitorial, security and similar jobs) for a long time. It seems an awful lot like what I understand has happened in European labor markets which are more regulated--stable jobs are limited, more workers, particularly the young pushed into contingent labor contracts with limited benefits, stability or security. From a distance this is fascinating: similar outcomes from radically different processes. But from a policy perspective it's frightening. In the economic development world, we've been talking for a long time about how to move more people into formal employment, like in developed economies. Meanwhile the developed economies are making great progress moving people into informal employment, like in developing countries. Maybe I should have called this item Global Undevelopment.
And to play to the academic part of my readership for a moment, here's a piece about how every effort to create better incentives in academic jobs makes things worse. I remain baffled at the general assumption in economics that managers know what they are doing, given the management they experience on a daily basis. While I can't vouch for the management abilities at the Open Philanthropy Project, chances are if you're a reader of the faiV you, or someone you know might be interested in these job openings.
3. MicroDigitalFinance: Is a neologism a step too far? Probably. But check out CFI's fellows program research agenda. There's a whole lot of "microdigital" there. Interestingly, to me at least, is that you could copy and paste these questions into a research agenda for the US financial services marketplace and no one would bat an eye, especially the ones about the changing nature of work.
The First Week of February 2018: The Morduch Edition
1. Development Economics Superstars: You know by now that NYU economist Paul Romer is heading home to downtown NY, leaving his post as the World Bank Chief Economist. It’s good news for the NYU development economics community. Don’t worry about the World Bank, though – if this list of amazing seminar speakers is any indication, the World Bank continues to be a place to find exciting ideas and research. The first speaker was this week: MIT’s Tavneet Suri talking about digital products and economic lives in Africa (video).
2. Dueling Deatons: It would be embarrassing to let on just how much I’ve learned from reading Angus Deaton over the years. But there are different versions of Deaton. One of them is a careful analyst of income and consumption data with a no-BS attitude toward poverty numbers. Another wrote an op-ed in the New York Times last week.
Deaton’s op-ed argued (1) that there’s quite a lot of extreme poverty in the US, not just in poorer countries, and (2) perhaps we should move budget from anti-poverty efforts abroad to those at home. Development economists & allied cosmopolitans rose up. Princeton ethicist Peter Singer argues that argument #2 clearly fails a cost-benefit test: it’s simply much cheaper to address needs abroad. Charles Kenny and Justin Sandefur of the Center for Global Development reject the idea that spending more in Mississippi should mean spending less in India, and they take a good whack at the US poverty data. But if you’re going to read just one rebuttal, make it Ryan Brigg’s essay in Vox. It’s the rebuttal to “provocative Deaton” that “no-BS Deaton” would have written. The main argument is: no, actually, there isn’t much “extreme poverty” in the US once you look at the data more carefully. Deaton’s basic premise thus falls away.
On a somewhat more personal note: in recent years, I’ve spent time down the back roads of Mississippi with people as poor as you’ll find in the state. I’ve come to know the kinds of Mississippi towns that Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer describe in their powerful US book, $2 a Day (one of Deaton’s sources). At the same time, I’ve worked in villages in India and Bangladesh where many households are targeted as “ultrapoor”. So I think I have a sense of what Deaton’s getting at in a more visceral way. He’s right about the essential point: It’s hard not to be angry about our complacency about poverty – both at home and in the US. We should be more aware (and more angry). But Deaton picked the wrong fight (and made it the wrong way) this time.
3. Risk and Return (Revisited): A big paper published this week. It’s nominally about farmers in Thailand, but it challenges common ways of understanding finance and inequality in general. The study holds important lessons but is fairly technical and not so accessible. The paper is “Risk and Return in Village Economies” by Krislert Samphantharak and Robert Townsend in the American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (ungated).
Why does poverty and slow economic growth persist? A starting point is that banks and other financial institutions often don’t work well in low-income communities. One implication is that small-scale farmers and micro-enterprises can have very high returns to capital -- but (or because) they can’t get hold of enough capital to invest optimally. The entire microfinance sector was founded on that premise, and there’s plenty of (RCT) evidence to back it.
Samphantharak and Townsend use 13 years’ worth of Townsend’s Thai monthly data to dig deeper. The paper gathers many insights, but here are two striking findings: The Thai households indeed have high average returns to capital but they also face much risk. Making things harder, much of that risk affects the entire village or broader economy and cannot be diversified away. As a result, much of the high return to capital is in fact a risk premium and risk-adjusted returns are far, far lower. That means that poorer households may have high returns to capital but they are not necessarily more productive than richer households (counter to the usual microfinance narrative). The action comes from the risk premium.
What is happening (at least in parts of these Thai data) is that poorer farmers are engaged in more risky production modes than richer farmers. Once risk premia are netted out, the picture changes and richer farmers are in fact shown to have higher (risk-adjusted) returns.
A few implications (at least in these data): (1) better-off farmers are both more productive and have more predictable incomes. So inequality in wealth is reinforced by inequality in basic economic security, the kind of argument also at the heart of the US Financial Diaries findings. (2) Poorer farmers face financial constraints, but not of the usual kind addressed by microfinance. The problems largely have to do with coping with risk. That might explain evidence that microfinance isn’t effective in the expected ways. (3) The evidence starkly contrasts with arguments made by people (like me) who argue that rural poverty is bound up with the inability to take on riskier projects.