Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Using Household Grants to Benchmark the Cost Effectiveness of a USAID Workforce Readiness Program

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2009.01749 v1 pith:RBHNWAGU submitted 2020-09-02 econ.GN q-fin.EC

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords programcashtrainingoutcomescostnumberonlyrelative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We use a randomized experiment to compare a workforce training program to cash transfers in Rwanda. Conducted in a sample of poor and underemployed youth, this study measures the impact of the training program not only relative to a control group but relative to the counterfactual of simply disbursing the cost of the program directly to beneficiaries. While the training program was successful in improving a number of core outcomes (productive hours, assets, savings, and subjective well-being), cost-equivalent cash transfers move all these outcomes as well as consumption, income, and wealth. In the head-to-head costing comparison cash proves superior across a number of economic outcomes, while training outperforms cash only in the production of business knowledge. We find little evidence of complementarity between human and physical capital interventions, and no signs of heterogeneity or spillover effects.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools