Impact evaluation of asset and cash transfers in South Sudan
Last registered on June 16, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Impact evaluation of asset and cash transfers in South Sudan
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007828
Initial registration date
June 15, 2021
Last updated
June 16, 2021 10:55 AM EDT
Location(s)
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of California, Berkeley
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
BRAC Institute of Governance & Development
PI Affiliation
Innovations for Poverty Action
PI Affiliation
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2013-04-01
End date
2015-08-31
Secondary IDs
#RIDIE-STUDY-ID-5450e3f81fbc6
Abstract
Studies have found that the ``graduation'' model can be
effective in alleviating the constraints that prevent extremely poor
households from increasing their productivity and income. This
consists of a sizable transfer of productive physical capital
coupled with training and coaching over the course of one or two
years. Related, there is evidence that a simpler program of
unconditional cash transfers (UCT's) may also improve household
productivity and welfare. Our field experiment provides a
comparison of these two approaches to transferring wealth to
low-income households during the first two years of BRAC's
ultra-poor pilot project in South Sudan. We consider the effect of
each program on productive and financial assets, income, and
consumption. We find evidence that both types of transfer have
positive effects on consumption, but only in the short-run. We find
a persistent increase in asset stocks, but only from the graduation
program. We also consider the graduation program's effect on
households' responses to the outbreak of violence in 2014 civil war,
and elicit suggestive evidence that BRAC's support may have helped
the beneficiaries to cope with the short-term economic effects of
the violence.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Chowdhury, Reajul et al. 2021. "Impact evaluation of asset and cash transfers in South Sudan." AEA RCT Registry. June 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7828-1.0.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
There are two principal interventions. The first involves enrolling eligible women into a "graduation" program, designed to provide capital and training to encourage entrepreneurial activity. Based on its assessment of the local markets, BRAC designed several possible
enterprises for the beneficiaries: goat husbandry, duck husbandry, maize cultivation, vegetable cultivation, and trade in dried fish. The
preferences of enrolled households over these different enterprises were elicited at baseline. The number of households to be given each kind of asset was set in advance, with 75 enrolled in agricultural activities (either maize or vegetable cultivation), 85 in duck rearing, 45 in goat rearing, and the rest in small trade involving dried fish. Within these limits, assignment to particular enterprises for each household was
made at the discretion of program staff after taking into account participants' preferences and skills. After assignment to a particular enterprise, participants attended two training sessions. The first of these was for general business skills, including literacy, numeracy, and financial
management. The next was sector-specific and focused on participants' respective enterprises. After these enterprise orientations were
complete, assets were transferred to recipients, valued at roughly 240 USD. Women subsequently attend weekly or semiweekly
meetings with other nearby participants to discuss the details of their businesses with each other and a BRAC extension officer. In
these group meetings, the participants also received food transfers collectively valued at roughly 110 USD.

The second intervention was an unconditional cash transfer, valued at roughly $350 (thus matching the value of the assets and food transferred in the first intervention).
Intervention Start Date
2013-10-15
Intervention End Date
2015-08-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
- Value of various productive assets
- Value of Livestock
- Value of stock of consumer durables
- Value of food stored
- Total cash savings
- Value of transfers to others
- Value of transfers from others
- Area of land cultivated
- Area of cultivable land owned
- Income from livestock
- Farm income
- Non-farm income
- Value of food consumed in last three days
- Value of non-durables purchased in last month
- Value of durables purchased in last year
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Totals of some of the primary outcomes will be assessed (e.g., total value of assets, total income). Whether or not households possess positive quantities of different variables will also be assessed.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
1. A census of households in the study area is conducted, with data collected from each household to determine eligibility.
2. A baseline survey of eligible households is conducted, which among other things elicits preferences over different possible enterprises.
3. A female "primary respondent" from each eligible household is randomly assigned (at the individual level) to the graduation (UPG) group; the unconditional cash transfer (UCT) group; or the control group.
4. The intervention is effected.
5. A midline survey is conducted roughly eight months after intervention.
6. An endline survey is conducted roughly 20 months after intervention.
7. Outcomes are compared across UCT, UPG, and Control groups.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office on a computer by drawing pseudo-random numbers from a uniform distribution using stata.
Randomization Unit
Individual randomization.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
One treatment cluster.
Sample size: planned number of observations
755 eligible households; successfully collected baseline data for randomization from 649.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
250 in UPG program; 125 to UCT program; 274 to control.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of California, Berkeley Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
IRB Approval Date
2015-01-31
IRB Approval Number
2014-07-6553
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, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS