x

We are happy to announce that all trial registrations will now be issued DOIs (digital object identifiers). For more information, see here.
Self-confidence among poor rural women: Implications of transfer program in Bangladesh
Last registered on May 13, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Self-confidence among poor rural women: Implications of transfer program in Bangladesh
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004169
Initial registration date
May 02, 2019
Last updated
May 13, 2019 11:41 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Queensland University of Technology
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2016-11-01
End date
2019-03-29
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This research project is being conducted on the program beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the Targeting the Ultra Poor Program (TUP) program implemented in Bangladesh. As a social protection program, TUP program provides consumption support and soft loan (interest rate is comparatively low (20%) and repayment starts after two months of taking the loan, interest rate is about 28% for conventional microfinance program) along with livelihood and life skill training, provides savings, health and legal services to move the poor out of poverty. All the supports are channelled through the main female member of the households. Studies have shown that this program has sustainable impact on income, self-employment, food security, and asset base (Bandiera et al 2016). In this study, our aim is to explore whether these supports have any impact on improving confidence and risk taking capability of the poor women.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Ara, Jinnat. 2019. "Self-confidence among poor rural women: Implications of transfer program in Bangladesh ." AEA RCT Registry. May 13. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4169-1.0.
Former Citation
Ara, Jinnat. 2019. "Self-confidence among poor rural women: Implications of transfer program in Bangladesh ." AEA RCT Registry. May 13. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4169/history/46424.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
As a social protection program, TUP program provides consumption support and soft loan (interest rate is comparatively low (20%) and repayment starts after two months of taking the loan, interest rate is about 28% for conventional microfinance program) along with livelihood and life skill training, provides savings, health and legal services to move the poor out of poverty. All the supports are channelled through the main female member of the households.
Intervention Start Date
2016-11-01
Intervention End Date
2018-12-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. women’s influence in household decision making
2. women's ability to take risk
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
To explore whether customized credit transfer program impacts on women’s influence in household decision making, information collected on whether women have influence in household decision making related to land purchasing, savings, children education, wedding, expenditure on treatment, food and nonfood consumption etc. The respondents were asked to report about who takes the decision on the above mentioned issues on a 1 to 5 point scale. The options are (1) woman solely decides, (2) she and her husband jointly decide, (3) her husband solely decides, (4) she and other family member jointly decide, and (5) other members decide. To assess the impact of the program on rural women’s attitude towards risk, the respondents were asked to participate in a hypothetical lottery and choose one of four options. Respondents were told that they have equal chance to win. The respondents have the chance to (1) get sure amount of money of Tk.100 if win or even fail to win, (2) get TK. 200 if win and get TK.60 if fail to win, (3) get TK. 300 if win and get TK.20 if fail to win, and (4) get TK. 400 if win and get nothing if fail to win. To investigate the impact of the program on time preference, respondents were asked to report how long they would like to wait to get a certain amount of money instead of accepting a lower amount of money today. Our survey asks the respondent to report whether they would like to (1) accept Tk. 200 today or Tk 250 after one month if they win a prize, (2) accept Tk. 200 today or Tk. 250 after two months if they win a prize. The respondents were also asked to report how long (in month) they would like to wait for Tk. 250. In addition to these two questions, in the follow up survey, we asked two more questions to the respondent following the choice-list method of elicitation of time-preference which involve opting between receiving a smaller payment at an earlier date and a larger payment at a later date (Bauer et al., 2012; Sutter et al., 2013).


Additionally we conduct an experiment in 2019 with 440 participants where participants involve playing simple economic games in a suitable venue such as their local school. The task involves throwing a tennis ball and the objective is to get it in a bucket that is placed at 3 meter distance from the participants. They have 10 tries. This task has 4 parts. All instructions were given in the local language (Bengali). These ‘economic games’ are based upon well-established methods used in experimental economics (e.g. Gneezy, K., Leonard, L., & List, AJ. 2009). Participation in the economic game(s) takes approximately 60 minutes.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The TUP program implements two intervention packages: (1) Specially Targeted Ultra Poor package (referred to as STUP package), a grant-based support package that transfers asset as grant, and (2) Other Targeted Ultra Poor package, a customized credit plus grant-based support package (referred to as OTUP package) that provides soft loan. The randomization proceeded as program purposively selected 11 districts in 2016 where the program was never implemented before 2016 or if any, the intensity of coverage was relatively low. In each of these 11 districts, the program selected eight (8) branch offices for the intervention, and carried out selection of eligible households using the process discussed earlier. Two out of eight branch offices were selected randomly as control group and the remaining six (6) branch offices were selected as treatment branches and offered the OTUP support package to the eligible households. Hence, out of the 88 branches (i.e. 11*8=88) from the 11 districts, there are 66 treatment branches and 22 control branches. The focus of my study is on OTUP support package.

Hence, it is to be noted that in the baseline, program intended to assess the relative effects of three different types of coaching for the ultra poor eligible for the STUP support package. For that 66 treatment branches were recruited, i.e. 22 treatment branches for each type of coaching. Training component of the program varies across the three treatment arms of STUP. While for those that are eligible for the OTUP support package, intervention remained the same across the three arms.
Experimental Design Details
We conduct an experiment in 2019 (following Gneezy et al 2009) with approximately 440 women who are the program beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the OTUP package of the Randomized Controlled Trial designed Targeting the Ultra Poor Program. They participate in a competition game where we intend to measure the confidence and aspiration of the participants. The participants were recruited randomly from 44 program branches (22 treatment branches and 22 control branches). From each branch, 10 participants were randomly selected and invited for participation (total 44*10=440).
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Randomization was adopted at the branch level. TUP program operates at the branch level; i.e., areas within a 5 km radius of the branch.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
Total Branch: 88
Sample size: planned number of observations
In baseline, from each of the selected 88 branch offices, researchers planned to survey 100 finally selected OTUP households. . Though it was planned to survey 8800 households (i.e. 88*100), it was possible to successfully survey a total of 8,961 eligible households. This is due to the fact that in some branches there were less than 100 eligible households, so the research assistants were instructed to survey more than 100 households where available. Sample size: 8973 (at baseline)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
7,042 households are from 66 treatment branches and
1,919 household are from 22 control branches
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers