Can Labour-constrained Households Graduate? Evidence from Two Studies in Malawi by Maxton Tsoka

1. Can labour-constrained households
graduate? Evidence from two
studies in Malawi
Maxton Tsoka, University of Malawi
June 2023

2. Two studies that can help us understand
graduation and sustainability of impacts
1. Long-term follow-up 2013-2021 involving early and
late entry households—did early entrants maintain
their initial advantage? Case for long-terms IE
2. ‘New’ baseline in 2022 that included a group that
were judged to be better off and ‘exited’ from the
SCTP

3. Long-term follow-up of SCTP
Households 2013-2021
How big an advantage does the program provide?
Questions of size of the transfer value

4. Impact Evaluation of SCTP in 2013-2015
• Randomized trial in Salima and Mangochi districts
• 3,500 households, half assigned to early/late treatment
• Baseline in 2013, follow-ups in 2014 and 2015
• Control group started receiving transfers in 2016
• Results in 2015 showed large, positive impacts of SCTP on
consumption, food security, schooling and productive activity
• Re-interviewed both groups in 2021
• Did the early 3 extra years of transfers confer a permanent advantage?
• How different were these two beneficiary groups after six years?

5. 0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
2013 2015 2021
Total Consumption Per Capita
Control (late entry) Treatment (early entry)
impact
Catch-up
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
2013 2015 2021
Quality of Life Index
Control (late entry) Treatment (early entry)
Catch-up
-Large impacts in 2015
-Continued improvements in the treatment group
-Treatment did not maintain its all-round advantage
impact

6. -Same pattern for productive outcomes
-Continued improvements in the treatment group
-Catch-up by the control group
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2013 2015 2021
Owned chicken, sheep, or goats
Control (late entry) Treatment (early entry)
impact
Catch-up
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2013 2015 2021
Spending on productive inputs and tools
Control (late entry) Treatment (early entry)
Catch-up
impact

7. Longitudinal Impact Evaluation:
What do we get from the
baseline?

8. ‘New’ baseline with four groups
1) New beneficiaries – households identified as eligible for SCTP but who have not
received cash transfers in the past
2) Continuing beneficiaries – households who have received SCTP for at least 4 years
and identified as still eligible for the programme.
3) Exited beneficiaries – households who have been receiving SCTP for at least 4
years and, due to socio-economic or demographic changes are no longer eligible
for the programme
4) Waiting list- ‘pre-eligible’ households who can enter the programme if space
opens up. They will have slightly higher PMT scores, but are labour-constrained
and ultra-poor (control group)

9. Questions of fairness of graduation come in
when there is a comparison of the exited
with new beneficiaries
Sustainability of impacts of the SCTP
answered by comparing 2 groups (exited
and continuing)
• If time allows, we will touch on the sustainability of
impacts by comparing continuing and exited
• Let’s start with fairness of ‘graduation’

10. But are exited households better off than new
entrants? PMT says ‘yes’

11. Yes. Exited better than entrants in terms of housing
structure and ownership of durable goods

12. But why is this ‘graduation’ looking
bad, especially in the eyes of the
graduates, when the graduates are
generally better off?
“Graduating from SCTP would be a very sad news to us
because we would have nothing to depend on since we are
very old and we cannot manage to do any kind of work that
could help us to earn a living. We would fail to have money to
buy food and other basic necessities for our families if we
could graduate from the SCTP program” FGD_2, Nkhatabay

13. Married prime age men (49 years) have replaced
old female and less able heads (59 years)

14. Exited are still hosts of the orphaned and grandchildren
more than those that have replaced them

15. Is exiting graduation?
• Exited households are better off in terms of PMT scores, which are
driven by housing quality and household durables
• BUT
• Those replacing them are socially better off
• Energetic married men with larger households, and more children have
replaced vulnerable households (households headed by people with
disabilities, widowed and orphan-caring grannies)
• More importantly, will the PMT scores remain as high over time?
• That is the subject of the longitudinal impact evaluation which is
underway (Watch this space)
• Given time, we can compare exited and continuing to have some idea

16. Sustainability of impacts
Exiting versus continuing:
How different are they even at baseline?

17. • In general, the exited have higher PMT scores than
continuing households
• However, they are no different in terms of
involvement in non-farm enterprises, an indicator of
possible movement away from ultra poverty

18. PMT scores of Exiting clearly higher than for Continuing
Only Exiting
Mostly Continuing
Overlap

19. Housing characteristics ‘better’ in Exiting
households

20. Exited are not engaged in NFE more
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NFE Sold crop
NFE, Cash cropping
Exiting Continuing

21. Thanks for your kind attention