Introduction and purpose of research Agnes R. Quisumbing IFPRI

1. What Development Interventions Work? The long-term impact and cost effectiveness of anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh Introduction and purpose of research Agnes R. QuisumbingIFPRI Data Analysis and Technical Assistance Ltd

2. Purpose of Workshop To obtain input from stakeholders to guide the implementation of a new research project on the long-term impact of anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh Project is funded by the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Project builds on an ongoing longitudinal study of the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, DATA, and IFPRI

3. What we want from this workshop: Implications for research and action What are the key issues identified by stakeholders (you) and their implications of the workshop on how we run the research project? What are the more general implications of the research on anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh, and elsewhere?

4. Overview Objectives and approach of the present study—this presentation The CPRC-DATA-IFPRI longitudinal study: Preliminary results—Bob Baulch Policy processes and cost-effectiveness—Akhter Ahmed Stakeholder roundtable Breakout groups Report back and plenary

5. Introduction Bangladesh → impressive reductions in poverty in the last decade Population living in poverty: fell from 51% in 1995 to 40% in 2005 (BBS 2006) Substantial improvements in non-monetary indicators of the poorest (Sen and Hulme, 2006). However, more than 50 million people still live in extreme poverty (BBS, 2006) Reducing poverty—and lifting the extreme poor out of poverty—remains a major development challenge

6. Government and NGOs in Bangladesh have undertaken many important interventions designed to help individuals and households escape poverty, many of these targeted to women. While many evaluations have attempted to assess their short-term effectiveness, relatively little is known about their long-term impact or their relative cost-effectiveness. Introduction

7. This project attempts to address this gap: It aims to: estimate the long-term impact of 3 antipoverty interventions on a range of monetary and non-monetary measures of well-being compare the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in attaining their poverty-reduction and other development objectives.

8. Background of the study This study builds on a recent longitudinal data set collected by CPRC-DATA-IFPRI, building on evaluations conducted by IFPRI and DATA of 3 interventions Microfinance (MFI) from 1994 Agricultural Technology (AT) from 1996 Educational Transfers (ET) from 2000 Results from these earlier evaluations can be found in handouts on the table outside

9. Map of the Study Sites

10. Treatment and control groups of the 3 interventions as of baseline round

11. For example, vegetable technologies were initially not disseminated to a village where pottery was the major industry Control village Treatment village

12. Casual observation suggests that there have been many changes over the past decade…

13. And some individuals/households have clearly been able to move out of poverty, and others, not.

14. There have also been some more subtle changes…

15. Examining long-term impacts Resurvey allows us to look at differences between treatment and control groups over time in this case, 6-12 years Evaluation methodologies have improved Quantitative and qualitative techniques are combined in this study Main quantitative techniques: propensity score matching and panel data analysis using household survey data Main qualitative techniques: reanalysis of FGDs and life histories

16. Impact Assessment Methodology Evaluating impacts of each program on various outcomes (e.g., per capita consumption, food consumption, assets, schooling, nutritional status, etc.) Construct a counterfactual measure: What would outcomes have been without the program? Requires “control group” - a group that that differs from participant group ONLY in that they don’t participate

17. Impact Assessment Methodology Control Groups Original studies had well defined control groups In this project, “Propensity Score Matching (PSM)" is used to match program participants with nonparticipating-control group PSM technique probability of participation in a program for each household, based on observable characteristics statistical comparison group → participants matched to nonparticipants with similar values of propensity scores.  compare change in outcomes over time for these 2 groups; i.e., “difference in difference” analysis

19. Stakeholder roundtablePlease discuss any of the 4 questions (5 minutes only) What current policy issues in Bangladesh should feed into the research? What questions does the team need to address for the research to be relevant? What information can the research generate that you will find useful? What do you need to know so that you can do what you are doing better?

20. Guidelines for break-out groups Split up into 4 groups Choose a note-taker and rapporteur Questions for groups What are the most important research, policy, and implementation issues identified by the round table? What additional issues should the research consider? Report back in 30 minutes