We use the term "economic empowerment" to refer to programs aiming directly at raising people's incomes, as opposed to improving their health or education. Such programs include agriculture-focused interventions (training, improved irrigation, etc. for farmers); microfinance; support for small and medium enterprises; and distribution of goods such as cellphones and spectacles. All are discussed below.
Below, we review what we know about the track record of programs in this area, and then lay out our principles for evaluating charities in this area. Unlike in the global health area, we have not found (a) programs with extremely strong track records; (b) charities that publicly disclose most or all of the information we would need to feel confident in their impact. (A summary of what we would need to see is below.)
Based on what we know, we recommend health programs as a superior way to help improve low-income people's lives compared to the options discussed on this page.
If you're committed to any of the program areas discussed on this page, we recommend that you investigate the following questions for any charity you're considering:
If you're committed to agriculture-focused interventions, you may want to consider The Hunger Project, which is partnering with Innovators for Poverty Action on a rigorous evaluation of its flagship strategy. The evaluation is not yet complete, but given the dearth of strong evidence in this area, the mere fact of working on one is encouraging.
If you're committed to the cause of microfinance, we recommend that you explore MixMarket, a site devoted to helping donors find strong microfinance institutions. The site allows you to search for microfinance institutions by region, type, and transparency (disclosure of information). Profiles (example here) include financial data, external evaluations (when available), and information about whether clients are low-income (when available, which it rarely is). We believe it is most appropriate to focus on funding a strong, transparent, effective institution rather than focusing on stories of individual borrowers.
Finally, BRAC, a large, Bangladesh-based organization focused on economic empowerment interventions. BRAC stands out from other charities we've looked at because of its (a) commitment to montoring and evaluation and (b) its exceptionally strong reputation. (For more, see our brief overview of BRAC.)
For more organizations, see the full list of charities we considered.1
Note that we will be conducting deeper research in this area in the future, by inviting applications for a $250,000 grant.
Many charities and official aid agencies have attempted to improve productivity and income for farmers, through programs including "rural extension" (education/knowledge sharing), irrigation, and provision of livestock among other things. The track record of these programs appears weak and is widely seen as disappointing. Past programs have suffered from multiple different kinds of failures to fully adapt external knowledge to local conditions.
Our full review of this area is here.
While encouraging anecdotes about microfinance are common, we have many questions - and have found relatively little information - about whether these anecdotes are reperesentative. We would guess that a microfinance institution is improving clients' lives, when it can be shown that (a) its clients are low-income and in need of assistance; (b) its clients consistently repay their loans. However, generalizations about how and how much such services improve lives are extremely difficult to make, and we have had difficulty finding microfinance institutions that can convincingly establish points (a) and (b). Our full review of this area is here.
Some programs aim specifically to help businesses (as opposed to individuals) in the developing world, in the hopes that they will create economic growth and jobs. There appears to be very little public information on the track record of such programs,2 and their ability to overcome the challenges of transferring investment/business knowledge from the developed world to the developing world (where we presume the environment is quite different).
Some programs focus on distribution of corrective lenses3, cellphones4 or other specific products that are intended to help people work more productively and raise their own incomes. The usefulness of these programs would presumably depend greatly on (a) whether they successfully reach the poor, rather than providing these products to anyone who wishes to benefit from donor subsidies; (b) whether the economic environment is such that these products allow improved productivity.
We have found very little research on the impact of programs in this category, aside from two studies attributing declines in local-market price variation over time to the use of cellphones5 (which may imply a beneficial effect on life outcomes from the natural proliferation of cellphones, but does little to answer question (a) at all or question (b) specifically for donor-subsidized programs).
In the area of health, many programs have strong evidence bases, enough to lower the burden of proof (to some degree) on a charity running them. For example, if a charity demonstrated that it was vaccinating additional children, we would have a fair amount of confidence that it was improving life outcomes, even without separate documentation of changes in disease rates, mortality rates, etc. (The evidence base for vaccines is discussed here.)
From what we have seen, no analogy exists within the area of economic empowerment. In fact, none of the programs above appear to be associated with either (a) multiple, rigorous "micro" studies tracking the impact on individuals; (b) any large-scale "macro" successes. (More on "micro" and "macro" evidence here.)
One way that any charity in this area might secure our recommendation is through a direct impact evaluation - i.e., a rigorous examination of its own programs' effects on people's standard of living, along the lines of many of the evaluations published by the Poverty Action Lab.6 (Running a program with "similarities" to another evaluated program would not be sufficient; the charity would need to evaluate its own impact).
Such evaluations are generally rare, particularly in the area of economic empowerment. The remainder of this section outlines some other things we look for in economic empowerment charities.
In our view, a program aiming to raise people's incomes should be accomplishing some combination of the following:
Each of these goals comes with its own questions and concerns.
The simplest way to raise people's incomes is to transfer wealth directly to them.7 However, programs that are explicitly giving away cash (or equivalents) would seem to be logical targets for exploitation by people with higher incomes. Therefore, we feel it is important for any wealth-transfer program to have a strong process for ensuring that its clients are truly in need, and to provide documentation that this is the case.
Note that many programs can effectively be "wealth transfer programs" even if they don't involve cash handouts. Any durable good – such as spectacles, cellphones, or rickshaws – that can potentially be re-sold for cash has both the advantages (giving low-income people the ability to determine their own needs) and the disadvantages (risk of exploitation by people with higher incomes) of cash transfers.
Loans ("microcredit") may fit in this category as well, if a donor-subsidized loan can be informally re-loaned at a market rate, generating a profit.
Bottom line: a program that gives away valuable products (including cash, loans, or durable goods) - or sells them for below-market prices – has a burden of proof to show that its clients are likely to be low-income. If a program could demonstrate that it is transferring wealth to relatively low-income people, we would accept this as ample evidence that the program is improving lives.
Creating wealth may come in many different forms, including
In many cases, it may be possible for a wealth-creating program to charge its beneficiaries, such that it is (at least eventually) able to sustain itself without donations. For example, it seems logical that if spectacles provide more value (in terms of increased earning power) than they cost (all costs including distribution), a program may be able to sell the spectacles at (or slightly above) what they cost and thus sustain itself.
In these cases, donations may still be helpful at the early stages of a venture, before it reaches the scale where it can cover its costs. In other words, donors may absorb the risk of starting a venture, though the venture aims eventually to be creating enough wealth to sustain itself indefinitely.
We would consider recommending a charity with a credible case that it was using donations in this way – i.e., to take on the risks associated with starting ventures that eventually become self-sustaining. We would not necessarily require direct evaluation of such a program's impact on standard of living; an ability to fund its own costs might serve as ample proof that it is creating wealth and therefore improving the world. (Considerations of who its clients and employees are, and how exactly this wealth is created, would still be relevant – the mere fact of profit does not guarantee benefit, but in combination with other factors it could substitute for impact evaluation).
However, it is not enough for a charity to be planning a self-sustaining endpoint – due to our focus on proven programs, we would want to see a track record of obtaining sustainability with past ventures.
In order to recommend an economic empowerment charity, we would need to see at least one of the following:
A microfinance institution, for example, could provide a rigorous evaluation of impact (along the lines of the recent Poverty Action Lab evaluation8) or strong evidence that its clients have low standards of living or a track record of starting lending operations that have since become self-sustaining.
To this point we have identified no organizations meeting this standard, based only on publicly available information from their websites. We will be conducting deeper research in this area in the future, by inviting applications for a $250,000 grant.
This table lists charities in this area as working on "economic empowerment".
"How effective have such programs of training, consulting and technology support been in improving the performance or productivity of small and medium enterprises? Despite policy interest in the topic, knowledge about how effective SME programs are is very limited." Tan and Lopez Acevedo 2005, Pg 1. The paper goes on to analyze a particular program in Mexico, using analysis that we feel is vulnerable to selection bias.
For example, see www.visionspring.org, accessed 7/7/09.
For example, see http://www.grameenfoundation.org/what_we_do/technology_programs/village_..., accessed 7/7/09.
See http://www.povertyactionlab.org/papers/ accessed 7/7/09. Examples include include "The miracle of microfinance?" and "Teaching Entrepreneurship," both of which examine the impact of economic empowerment programs on incomes/consumption.
Note that a rigorous evaluation in Ecuador found that a program consisting of simple cash transfers improved the health of recipients' children.
http://povertyactionlab.com/papers/microfin.pdf, accessed 6/30/09.
