Cash injections bolster clinical interventions
Straight-up handing money to struggling families shown to save the lives of their children.
Kiri Rupiah
When pregnant women in western Kenya received $1,000 from a charity, they spent it on better food and healthcare, and took time off work, which led to healthier and safer births.
In a randomised control trial, researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University examined 100,000 births in the area, comparing households that received a cash gift to those that didn’t.
GiveDirectly, a charity that champions unconditional cash gifts as an alternative approach to aid, sent the funds between 2014 and 2017. The findings show infant mortality reduced by 48% and under-5 mortality by 45%. “Around 90 children survived who otherwise might not have,” said Dr Miriam Laker-Oketta, a senior research adviser at GiveDirectly.
GiveDirectly said the cash “saved as many children’s lives as some of the most effective tools in global health”, citing mosquito nets and vaccinations as less effective than cash. That claim raised the eyebrows of some health experts. One who spoke anonymously called it “a marketing strategy”.
Cash transfers should complement, not replace health services, said Dr Harsha Thirumurthy of the University of Pennsylvania. “We need both.”
Laker-Oketta agreed: “Cash is fuel; clinics, the engine. Both are essential.”
The study’s finding also reignites a long-standing debate on the cost and benefit of randomised control trials. The methodology is the gold standard for evidence on aid effectiveness. But such trials are very expensive – a $60,000 budget is considered shoestring.
The anonymous critic questioned why such expensive research was conducted to re-establish accepted knowledge: that health improves with income.
Interesting