The effects of instituting informal institutions on social and economic outcomes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh

Last registered on July 08, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The effects of instituting informal institutions on social and economic outcomes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009709
Initial registration date
July 07, 2022

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
July 08, 2022, 9:48 AM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Bangladesh
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Rocco Zizzamia
Affiliation
University of Oxford
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Ashley Pople
PI Affiliation
University of Oxford
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Stefan Dercon
PI Affiliation
University of Oxford
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Munshi Sulaiman
PI Affiliation
BRAC Institute for Governance and Development
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Imran Matin
PI Affiliation
BRAC Institute for Governance and Development
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Narayan Das
PI Affiliation
BRAC Institute for Governance and Development
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2016-04-01
End date
2023-03-01
Keywords
Behavior, Governance, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Graduation programmes such as BRAC's Targeting the Ultra-Poor (TUP) have traditionally focused on transferring resources and providing health services and training to recipients. The origin of these transfers is from outside the recipient communities: That is, the transfer of resources and skills is made from wealthier parts of the country (in the case of tax-funded programmes) or of the world (in the case of foreign donors) to poor members of relatively deprived communities. This traditional model does not attempt to change the way in which resources are distributed and help is mobilised within recipient communities. At the same time, increasing transfers may have unintended consequences if within-community private transfers and risk-sharing are crowded out. Motivated by these concerns, in 2016, BRAC trialed an intervention which attempts to leverage local knowledge and existing forms of informal social protection to improve outcomes for the recipients of their TUP programmes, or at the very least to off-set any possible crowding-out effects. They did this by instituting informal institutions called "village assistance committees" (VACs) in recipient communities. By exploiting random variation that was built into the programme roll-out (VACs were established in a randomly selected subset of eligible villages), we aim to evaluate the impact that these forms of informal institutions have on distributive outcomes, consumption, social inclusion, and overall living standards among TUP beneficiaries.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Das, Narayan et al. 2022. "The effects of instituting informal institutions on social and economic outcomes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh." AEA RCT Registry. July 08. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9709-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
An important component of BRAC's TUP programmes is the institution of Village Assistance Committees (VACs), designed to strengthen the networks of recipient ultra-poor households. These VACs remain one of the least discussed components of the graduation approach that BRAC has pioneered. BRAC introduced this component in all their direct implementation sites, and three of the six country pilots had some type of VAC. Each committee is comprised of TUP representatives (i.e., ultra-poor women) and community leaders -- for instance wealthier land owners, teachers, imams, local authorities. The VAC meets monthly and discusses issues raised by the TUP representatives with the aim of helping them build social networks and leverage community ties. The VACs are intended to help programme recipients protect their assets, increase access to government services, and offer support in times of need by coordinating local community support.

The need for VACs was motivated by an acknowledgement that the programme needs to ensure community buy-in, leadership, and collective consensus so that the interventions do not crowd out the informal risk sharing and transfers often crucial in sustaining rural livelihoods, or indeed the sense of belonging of the recipients within community networks. Beyond this, VACs may complement TUP interventions -- local elites may be better informed and equipped to provide support to TUP beneficiaries, especially in the event of idiosyncratic shocks which require an immediate response. In addition, VACs may function as a commitment device, increasing recipients' compliance with the TUP programme.

Given the lack of evidence on the role of introducing VACs, in the 2016 roll-out of their Targeting the Ultra-Poor programme, BRAC randomly identified some villages in which VACs would be set up, and others which would serve as a control group.
Intervention Start Date
2016-08-15
Intervention End Date
2018-12-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Asset holdings, consumption and food security, living standards
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
See pre-analysis plan (attached) for details.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Income, variance of consumption, labour supply, social inclusion, health, savings, access to credit, informal risk sharing, access to government and non-government social services, elite transfers, elite dispute resolution, public-mindedness of village elites, role of VAC in shock response, access to public goods
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
See pre-analysis plan (attached) for details.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In its fourth phase of the Targeting the Ultra-Poor Graduation (TUP) programme (starting in 2016) BRAC implemented an RCT in Bangladesh to test the effectiveness of instituting VACs on household outcomes. The sample of villages and households in this study is therefore drawn from villages in which BRAC was rolling out its TUP programme. The households which make up our sample in this study are all 2016 recipients of the TUP intervention. Therefore, any impacts we observe in 2022 will be the combined effect of the TUP programme and the introduction or non-introduction of VACs. (Note that this RCT was nested within a larger RCT in which three variants of BRAC's TUP were rolled out to randomly selected beneficiaries (see the other trial registered by the same authors on the ARA registry).)

A baseline survey was conducted in 2016 prior to rolling out the randomized interventions. Baseline surveys were completed by 1,600 recipients and their households. Our analysis of this RCT will be based on an endline survey on these beneficiaries. Data collection on this endline survey began on the 7th of June 2022, and is expected to be completed within two months -- by early-to-mid August 2022.

Figure 1 in the attached Analysis Plan summarizes the RCT design. The study covers 16 branch offices (the smallest unit in BRAC’s administrative structure) from 8 districts. 89 villages were selected from within these 16 branches, and villages were then randomly assigned to treatment (45 villages) and control (44 villages) where

a) Treatment: VAC was formed in the village
b) Control: No VAC was formed within the village
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomisation using computer assignment
Randomization Unit
Randomisation was undertaken at the village level. Of 89 villages, 45 were assigned to treatment and 44 to control.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
89 villages
Sample size: planned number of observations
1600
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1600
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
CUREC-DREC
IRB Approval Date
2021-04-01
IRB Approval Number
ECONCIA21-22-12
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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?
No
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