Back to History Current Version

Resilience to economic shocks through continued electricity access in Kenya

Last registered on July 09, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Resilience to economic shocks through continued electricity access in Kenya
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005941
Initial registration date
May 29, 2020

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 01, 2020, 4:18 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
July 09, 2021, 12:00 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
Kenya
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Susanna Berkouwer
Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Edward Miguel
PI Affiliation
University of California at Berkeley
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Catherine Wolfram
PI Affiliation
University of California at Berkeley
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Eric Hsu
PI Affiliation
University of California at Berkeley
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Oliver Kim
PI Affiliation
University of California at Berkeley
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Kenneth Lee
PI Affiliation
Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2020-04-01
End date
2021-06-30
Keywords
Environment & Energy
Additional Keywords
Covid-19
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
As COVID-19 spreads in lower-income countries, access to electricity will be critical in allowing households and firms to continue productive activities, maintain economic connections remotely, and stay up-to-date on the latest public health guidelines. Meanwhile, restrictions aimed at slowing the epidemic will cause severe short-run economic impacts, particularly in the poorest communities where many may suddenly be unable to pay their monthly bills. In Kenya, we expect severe disruptions in markets to hamper the ability of firms and households to afford ongoing electricity consumption. In anticipation of this urgent problem, we propose providing emergency electricity credits to randomly-selected low-income respondents in Kenya to study the impacts of a policy subsidising utility bills during an economic crisis.

Our proposed research leverages two ongoing projects related to electricity access in seven counties in rural Kenya. We propose to complement this with a new sample of urban residents in Nairobi. This generates a sample of over 2,000 individuals with pre-paid meters, located at a mix of home and firm locations in both urban and rural areas. A randomly selected treatment group will receive monthly top-ups on their pre-paid meters for 3 months. Top-ups will be valued at 5 USD (30 kWh) per month, which is similar to the ‘lifeline’ tariff in Kenya, and is roughly equivalent to operating a modest set of appliances for one month. A subset of participants will be offered a choice between 5 USD in electricity subsidies or a randomized cash amount between 1-6 USD (we are currently piloting to inform the exact amount). This will allow us to estimate willingness to pay for electricity access, and thus estimate the value of electricity during an economic crisis. Kenya Power prepaid top-ups can be made via M-Pesa, which will allow us to automate these top-ups and avoid in-person interactions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Berkouwer, Susanna et al. 2021. "Resilience to economic shocks through continued electricity access in Kenya." AEA RCT Registry. July 09. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5941-3.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2020-06-01
Intervention End Date
2020-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
- Electricity usage
- Total consumption expenditure
- Total household income
- Total hours worked outside the home (self-emp & emp)
- Total revenue for firms owned by household
- Food security index
- Child education index
- COVID Knowledge Index
- COVID Symptoms Index
- Number of social interactions in last 2 weeks
- Mental Health Index
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Our proposed research leverages two ongoing projects related to electricity access in seven counties in rural Kenya. We propose to complement this with a new sample of urban residents in Nairobi. This generates a sample of over 2,000 individuals with pre-paid meters, located at a mix of home and firm locations in both urban and rural areas. A randomly selected treatment group will receive monthly top-ups on their pre-paid meters for 3 months. Top-ups will be valued at 5 USD (30 kWh) per month, which is similar to the ‘lifeline’ tariff in Kenya, and is roughly equivalent to operating a modest set of appliances for one month. A subset of participants will be offered a choice between 5 USD in electricity subsidies or a randomized cash amount between 1-6 USD (we are currently piloting to inform the exact amount). This will allow us to estimate willingness to pay for electricity access, and thus estimate the value of electricity during an economic crisis. Kenya Power prepaid top-ups can be made via M-Pesa, which will allow us to automate these top-ups and avoid in-person interactions.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randmization in Stata using randtreat
Randomization Unit
Village
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
350
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Equal distribution
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Berkeley CPHS
IRB Approval Date
2020-05-28
IRB Approval Number
2017-12-10599
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

PreAnalysisPlan_Covid_LMCP-REPP.pdf

MD5: 5616618e323df1874ffbea4edc73bfc6

SHA1: 34196fbfb6f2cefe8f9c3aa52bab1f06e523bfc0

Uploaded At: October 09, 2020

Data Management Plan

MD5: b1665ffa4fdaf10fe61ad495239db719

SHA1: 0ac33081faba912e831909976ca47d3879d77ea9

Uploaded At: June 04, 2020

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
November 30, 2020, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
December 31, 2020, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Abstract
In response to the Covid-19 crisis, 186 countries implemented direct cash transfers to households, and 181 introduced in-kind programs that lowered the cost of utilities such as electricity, water, transport, and mobile money. During times of crisis, do people prefer in-kind transfers or cash, and why? In this paper, we compare electricity transfers against a benchmark of cash transfers (mobile money) among 2000 rural and urban residents of Kenya with pre-paid electricity meter connections. We offer participants an incentivized choice between electricity transfers or mobile money, totaling approximately USD 10 to 15, and then implement their choice over three months. We generate three main findings. First, participants overwhelmingly prefer cash, with three-quarters of participants opting for mobile money even when offered electricity tokens with a cash value that is 40 percent higher, possibly due to the flexibility in expenditures or credit constraints. Second, despite relatively low baseline electricity consumption, preference for cash is slightly lower in rural areas, possibly due to higher transaction costs for purchasing electricity, lower mobile money penetration, or savings constraints. Third, electricity tokens transfers generate a larger increase in electricity consumption than equivalent cash transfers, suggesting a role for mental accounting; however, we estimate no impact of either electricity or cash transfers on a broad set of socioeconomic outcomes. These patterns suggest that mobile money transfers generate larger welfare gains than electricity credit, at least in settings with high mobile money penetration.
Citation
Berkouwer, S., P. Biscaye, E. Hsu, O. Kim, K. Lee, E. Miguel, and C. Wolfram. Money or Power? Choosing Covid-19 Aid in Kenya. Energy Economics. 2023. 127(B)107036.
URL
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107036

Reports & Other Materials