John Maluccio's (Middlebury College) presentation at the Transfer Project Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania on 2nd April 2019.

1. Long-Term Impacts of Conditional
Cash Transfers: Review of the Evidence
Based on open access: “Long-term impacts of conditional cash
transfers: Review of the evidence” Molina Millán, T., T. Barham, K.
Macours, J.A. Maluccio, and M. Stampini. World Bank Research
Observer, (forthcoming 2019).
John A. Maluccio (Middlebury College)
Transfer Project Conference April 2-4, 2019
1

2. Twin Objectives of CCTs
• Short-term: poverty reduction via cash transfers
targeted to the poor
• Long-term: poverty reduction through enhanced
investment in human capital (occasionally combined
with other interventions) e.g. in the labor market
• Similar rationale/possibilities for SCTs
– Despite no conditionality
2

3. CCT Program Designs
• Following the initial PROGRESA design
– Sizable cash transfers to mothers ~15% of household expenditures
– Conditional on
• health/growth monitoring young children
• school enrollment and attendance older children
– Workshops and social marketing on nutrition, preventive health care and
education
• Many with built-in evaluation design
– rigorous evidence on short-term effectiveness in
nutrition/health, education, poverty  1st objective
• Similar evidence accumulating for SCTs
– Role of conditions for CCTs
• Important clues, but do not imply long-term effects
– Catch-up possible 3

4. Long-term
• What do we mean by long-term? Macro/micro
• For truly full assessment = decades, eg the next
generation - but policy decisions cannot wait
• We operationalize “long-term” related to
accumulation of human capital as follows:
– Impacts observed after the beneficiary children
have transitioned to a later life-cycle phase
1) Does exposure in utero and early childhood (<6 y)
 improvements in school-age outcomes
2) Does exposure at school ages  improvements in
(early) adult outcomes 4

5. Study Coverage and Evaluation Designs
• Global, but most evidence from Latin America
– Currently reach ~25% of the population of the
region
• Evaluation Design “flavors”
– Experimental
• Absolute vs Differential
• Experimental
– Non-Experimental
• Comparison Group
• Roll-out and rule changes
• Each with strengths/weaknesses
5

6. Programs and Countries Included
Country
GDP PC
PPP
(2016)1
HDI index
(2015)2
Mean
years of
schooling
(2015)2
Size Program Name
Mexico 17,275 0.76 8.6 national PROGRESA/Oportunidades
Colombia 14,154 0.73 7.6 national Familias en Acción
Nicaragua 5,540 0.65 6.5 regional Red de Protección Social
Honduras 4,737 0.63 6.2 regional PRAF-II
El Salvador 8,617 0.68 6.5 regional Comunidades Solidarias Rurales
Ecuador 11,242 0.74 8.3 national Bono de Desarollo Humano
Cambodia 3,737 0.56 4.7 regional CESSP Scholarship Program
Pakistan 5,235 0.55 5.1 regional Punjab Female School Stipend
Malawi 1,169 0.48 4.4 pilot Schooling, Income, Health Risk Study
Colombia 14,154 0.73 7.6 pilot Subsidios
Note: (1) 2016 World Development Indicators, World Bank; (2) 2016 Human
Development Report , UNDP
6
Ongoing program

7. Outcomes at School Ages
(after 2-13 years)
Table 2b. Overview of impacts on outcomes at school ages from exposure during early childhood
Country Sex Anthro
Cognitive
developm
ent
Socio-
emotio
nal
School Learning
Mexico F/M 0/0 0/0 +/+ 0/0 n.a.
F/M n.a. n.a. n.a. +/+ n.a.
F/M +/+ +/+ +/+ n.a. n.a.
Colombia F/M n.a. +/+ n.a. n.a. n.a.
F/M +/+ 0/0 n.a. +/+ +/+
Nicaragua M 0 + n.a. n.a. n.a.
Honduras F/M n.a. n.a. n.a. +/+ n.a.
Ecuador1 F/M n.a. 0/0 0/0 n.a. 0/0
El Salv F/M n.a. n.a. n.a. +/+ n.a.
Notes: females (F) and males (M). 0 indicates no significant impact. ? indicates
mixed results. - or + indicate negative or positive results. n.a. indicates no
information available. 1. Conditionalities not enforced..
7

8. Summary Outcomes: School Ages
• Overall, somewhat sparse evidence base
– And human capital theory suggests additional
gains may yet emerge as age
• Nevertheless:
• Schooling gains evident
• For health and cognition evidence for gains in some
but not all settings
– “zero” may not mean no effect, differential
– Catch-up for those receiving similar benefits at
later age 8

9. Outcomes in (Early) Adulthood
Table 2a. Overview of impacts on outcomes in young adulthood from
exposure during school ages
Country Sex
Higher
levels of
schooling
Learning
Labor force
participation
Income
Mexico F/M +/+ 0/0 0/? n.a.
F/M +/+ n.a. +/? +/0
F/M +/+ n.a. +/+ 0/0
Colombia F/M +/+ ?/? n.a. n.a.
F/M +/+ +/+ +/0 n.a.
Nicaragua F/M 0/+ 0/+ +/+ +/+
F/M +/+ +/+ 0/0 0/0
Honduras F/M +/+ n.a. ?/0 0/0
Ecuador1 F/M +/+ n.a. 0/0 n.a.
Cambodia F/M +/+ 0/0 0/0 0/0
Pakistan F + n.a. - n.a.
Malawi F + 0 0 0
Colombia F/M +/+ n.a. n.a. n.a.
Notes: Females (F) and males (M). 0 indicates no significant impact. ? indicates mixed results. - or +
indicate negative or positive results. n.a. indicates no information available. 1. Conditionalities not
enforced.
9

10. Summary Outcomes: (Early) Adulthood
• Consistently lead to higher grades
– And higher completed levels beyond primary
school
• Effect on learning/achievement in some
• Less definitive are gains in the labor market
– But may reflect period of transition from schooling
to work
– “zero” may not mean no effect
• Limited evidence on fertility and migration,
important mechanisms underlying labor market
10

11. Critical Assessment of Evidence
• Few evaluations actually designed to measure long-
term impacts
• Experimental designs often only estimate differential
• Non-experimental designs in general, concern
regarding whether the comparison group is valid
• Many studies suffer from substantial selection
– Attrition (often due to migration)
– Imperfect matching between different data sources
• In studies on young adults : possibly too early to
distinguish late entry in labor market (~schooling) from
long-term labor market effects

12. Possible Moderating Factors
• Initial Income Level of Country
– Effects e.g. on schooling at lower levels for
lower income, relatively larger
• Complementary/Supportive Institutions
– Schooling system
– Health System (including reproductive services)
– Labor Market Insertion
12

13. Lessons for Evaluation Planning (1)
• Identifying a valid counterfactual (none is perfect)
– Ensures what find is “correct” (even zeros)
• Ex ante research design and ongoing planning (where
possible)
– Extension/expansion of short-term designs
» Experimental to non-experimental
– Regular follow-up
» To provide intermediate outcomes & reduce attrition
• Program already started, what to do?
13

14. Lessons for Evaluation Planning (2)
• Identify cohorts or groups for which there likely is enough
statistical power to detect long-term impacts
– Large or long differential in exposure
– Sub-population with larger short-term effects
• Select on critical age-windows, groups for whom program made
a bigger difference (e.g. more liquidity constrained, less
educated, etc.)
• Exploit program design/implementation
– Specifics of eligibility rules or changes in rules
– Roll-out (for larger e.g., national programs)
• Existing/ongoing data sources vs new data collection
• Specific analytical techniques used will vary
14

15. Conclusion
• Robust evidence on some important long-term
impacts of CCTs, particularly schooling
• Evidence on other important outcomes, in
particular the labor market, is less deep, but
accumulating
• Undoubtedly, the experiences in your countries will in
short order begin to contribute to that evidence base
Thank you!
maluccio@Middlebury.edu
15

16. Appendix Slides
Based on open access: “Long-term impacts of conditional cash transfers: Review
of the evidence” Molina Millán, T., T. Barham, K. Macours, J.A. Maluccio, and M.
Stampini. World Bank Research Observer, (forthcoming 2019).
16

17. Programs Covered (Full Table 1)
Country
GDP PC
PPP
(2016)1
HDI
education
index
(2015)2
Mean
years of
schooling
(2015)2
Program
size
Name Program
Type of
evidence
Years
since start
program
Years after
end
program
Program Components
Mexico 17,275 0.762 8.6 national PROGRESA/Oportunidades Exp+Nonexp 6/10/13 ongoing Health and Education
Colombia 14,154 0.727 7.6 national Familias en Acción Nonexp 7/10/12 ongoing Health and Education
Nicaragua 5,540 0.645 6.5 regional Red de Protección Social Exp+Nonexp 10 5 Health and Education
Honduras 4,737 0.625 6.2 regional PRAF-II Exp 13 8 Health and Education
El Salvador 8,617 0.680 6.5 regional Comunidades Solidarias Rurales Nonexp 6 ongoing Health and Education
Ecuador* 11,242 0.739 8.3 national Bono de Desarollo Humano Exp+Nonexp 10 ongoing Health and Education
Cambodia 3,737 0.563 4.7 regional CESSP Scholarship Program Nonexp 5 2 Education
Pakistan 5,235 0.550 5.1 regional Punjab Female School Stipend Program Nonexp 5 ongoing Education
Malawi 1,169 0.476 4.4 pilot Schooling, Income and Health Risk Study Exp 4 2 Education
Colombia 14,154 0.727 7.6 pilot Subsidios Exp 12 11 Education
* Conditionalities not enforced
Note: (1) 2016 World Development Indicators, World Bank; (2) 2016 Human Development Report , UNDP
17

18. Young Adulthood Outcomes (Full Table 2a)
Table 2a. Overview of impacts on outcomes in young adulthood from exposure during school
ages
Section
of this
paper
Country CCT Program Population Impact estimate
Higher levels
of schooling
Learning
Labor force
participation
Income
2.1.1 Mexico PROGRESA/Oportunidades F/M Exp Differential +/+ 0/0 0/? n.a.
F/M Nonexp Absolute +/+ n.a. +/? +/0
F/M Nonexp Differential +/+ n.a. +/+ 0/0
2.1.2 Colombia Familias en Acción F/M Nonexp Absolute +/+ ?/? n.a. n.a.
F/M Nonexp Differential +/+ +/+ +/0 n.a.
2.1.3 Nicaragua Red de Protección Social F/M Exp Differential 0/+ 0/+ +/+ +/+
F/M Nonexp Absolute +/+ +/+ 0/0 0/0
2.1.4 Honduras PRAF-II F/M Exp Absolute +/+ n.a. ?/0 0/0
2.1.5 Ecuador1 Bono de Desarollo Humano F/M Nonexp Absolute +/+ n.a. 0/0 n.a.
2.2.1 Cambodia CESSP Scholarship Program F/M Nonexp Absolute +/+ 0/0 0/0 0/0
2.2.2 Pakistan Punjab Female School Stipend Program F Nonexp Absolute + n.a. - n.a.
2.2.3 Malawi
Schooling, Income and Health Risk
Study
F Exp Absolute + 0 0 0
2.2.4 Colombia Subsidios F/M Exp Absolute +/+ n.a. n.a. n.a.
Notes: See corresponding section for descriptions of results, some of which only pertain to specific subpopulations. Results that studies do not report separately by
gender were assumed to be the same for females (F) and males (M). 0 indicates no significant impact. ? indicates mixed results. - or + indicate negative or positive
results. n.a. indicates no information available. 1. Conditionalities not enforced. Exp = experimental; Nonexp = non-experimental.
18

19. School-Age Outcomes (Full Table 2b)
Table 2b. Overview of impacts on outcomes at school ages from exposure during early childhood
Sectio
n of
this
paper
Country CCT Program Population Impact estimate
Anthropometric
s
Cognitive
development
Socio-
emotional
Schooling Learning
3.1.1 Mexico PROGRESA/Oportunidades F/M Exp Differential 0/0 0/0 +/+ 0/0 n.a.
F/M Nonexp Absolute n.a. n.a. n.a. +/+ n.a.
F/M
Nonexp
Differential
+/+ +/+ +/+ n.a. n.a.
3.1.2 Colombia Familias en Acción F/M Nonexp Absolute n.a. +/+ n.a. n.a. n.a.
F/M
Nonexp
Differential
+/+ 0/0 n.a. +/+ +/+
3.1.3 Nicaragua Red de Protección Social M Exp Differential 0 + n.a. n.a. n.a.
3.1.4 Honduras PRAF-II F/M Exp Absolute n.a. n.a. n.a. +/+ n.a.
3.1.5 Ecuador1 Bono de Desarollo Humano F/M Exp Absolute n.a. 0/0 0/0 n.a. 0/0
3.1.6
El
Salvador
Comunidades Solidarias
Rurales
F/M
Nonexp Absolute
n.a. n.a. n.a. +/+ n.a.
Notes: See corresponding section for descriptions of results, some of which only pertain to specific subpopulations. Results that studies do not report separately
by gender were assumed to be the same for females (F) and males (M). 0 indicates no significant impact. ? indicates mixed results. - or + indicate negative or
positive results. n.a. indicates no information available. 1. Conditionalities not enforced. Exp = experimental; Nonexp = non-experimental.
19