Commentary on IFPRI and IFS Papers

1. Commentary on IFPRI and IFS Papers Jere R. Behrman University of Pennsylvania III Seminario Internacional Transferencias Condicionadas Erradicación del Hambre y la Desnutrición Crónica Santiago, Chile 1 December 2008

2. IFPRI 1: “Conditional Cash Transfer Programs and Nutrition in Latin America: Assessment of Impacts and Strategies for Improvement” by John Hoddinott and Lucy Bassett • IFPRI 2: “Designing CCT Programs to Improve Nutrition Impact: Evidence, Principles, and Questions” by James Garrett, Lucy Bassett, Marie Ruel and Alessandra Marini • IFS: “Old and New Welfare: their relative effect on Child Nutrition “ by Orazio Attanasio, Julieta Trias and Marcos Vera-Hernández

3. What are CCTs? And why of interest? • Transfers conditional on behaviors as reflected in explicit indicators • So what is new? Are scholarships CCTs? • Demand-side oriented in practice but could be conditional on supply behaviors as Garrett et al. note (and, at a certain level, subsidies for schools and clinics are CCTs) • Usually multiple conditionalities (e.g, school enrollment, health checkups, growth monitoring – Garrett et al. Table 3)

4. Why so popular? • Conditionalities chosen have fairly short term indicators so apparent progress visible, useful given high discount rate among most policymakers • Coresponsibilities mean less stigma? more acceptance throughout society? • Paternalistic assurance of “good use” of transfers (e.g., Hoddinott & Bassett, p. 3 “Behavioral conditions … important to encourage …households… that undervalue … or are not willing to undertake risks associated with a good or service…”; Garrett et al, p. 27: “Policymakers … must think how to direct changes caused by [income] increase to the child’s need”) • Second-best way of dealing with information imperfections (but then need to be ongoing?)

5. Redistribution towards children (equalizing?), women (Martinelli and Parker 2003) • IFPRI evaluation of PROGRESA gave added credibility of “arms-length” evaluation internationally as well as in Mexico

6. CCTs and Nutrition • Most CCTs have nutritional component • Partly in name (i.e. relatively unconditional component of Mexican program) • Partly in practice (supplements, information, growth monitoring) – though debate about effectiveness (e.g., supplements shared with others) • Could be made more effective by tying more closely to outcomes (i.e., child growth rather than accepting supplements)? • Attractive vehicle given popularity, but tradeoffs.

7. Three studies are nice complements regarding CCTs and nutrition, with some overlaps but also some distinctive contributions for each.

8. IFPRI 1: Hoddinott and Bassett • Summarizes IFPRI work on Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua and Honduras • Presents interesting and new, but in some way troublesome, analysis of multiple studies on Mexico. • Striking how difficult is replication , in part because of data availability. • Also striking differences among studies, reinforced by more recent evidence (after 10 years no significant effects on stunting – though on behaviors and language abilities, Behrman et al. 2008).

9. Useful speculation on CCT modifications to enhance effectiveness regarding nutrition • Raises question whether CCTs best way to go (as does IFPRI 2 and as addressed in sense by IFS) • Possible limitations • Not clear that altitude controlled in anemia estimates. • Does inclusion of added variables in (1) change point estimates? • Costs not considered much • Efficiency policy motive not explicitly considered much

10. IFPRI 2: Garrett, Bassett, Ruel & Marini • Rich, broad perspective on CCTs and nutrition – both as part of larger system and on their own with detailed description of possible channels • Systematic summary (particularly in tables) of a number of experiences in LAC. • In some cases questions about what we really know (e.g., girl’s education on p. 17, given micro estimates that suggest associations overstate such impacts unless control for endowments – Behrman & Rosenzweig 2002, Black et al. 2005, Plug 2004 in American Economic Review).

11. More elaboration on nature of community effort (p. 31) • Possible additional evidence on inefficiencies (e.g., externalities mentioned on p. 25, but no empirical estimates) • Which of six “Essential Nutrition Actions” (p. 41) particularly suitable for CCTs and which for other policies? • Insufficient attention to costs

12. IFS: Attanasio, Trias & Vera-Hernández • Interesting comparison of two programs, Hogares Comunitarios and Familias en Acción • Technical question of further diagnostics of estimates (Stock and Yugo weak instrument and overidentification type tests) • Interesting that can not find significant difference, particularly since extent to which directed towards nutrition differs strongly; what about cost differences?

13. All Three • More clarity about cost side. To make choices would like internal rates of return or benefit-costs of alternatives • More clarity about efficiency motive for policy – differences between private and social rates of return. Are these “win-win” options with both efficiency and (pro-poor) distributional gains likely? What are the nature of the inefficiences empirically (capital markets, insurance markets, information)?

14. Time and duration effects may be important: startup, pioneer versus learning effects, path of effect as duration changes (Behrman & King 2008, King and Behrman 2008) • To clarify priorities, what would be top three experiments that each set of authors would propose to assess improvement in CCTs with regard to nutrition or whether other programs better?