Because this violates my priors, and appears a high-quality RCT, I found this very interesting.
>The researchers specified in advance seven measures on which they thought children in high-cash families would outperform the others. But after four years they found no group differences on any of the yardsticks, which aimed for a comprehensive look at child development.
There are several reasons to discount the evidence, such as the Covid pandemic conditions. But... there are always reasons to discount, that's how post-hoc bias works.
So seems like important evidence to learn from, especially if you still believe in transfers and want them to provide a good ROI.
>While researchers publicized the earlier, more promising results, the follow-up study was released quietly and has received little attention. Several co-authors declined to comment on the results, saying that it was unclear why the payments had no effect.
Sad response, but understandable if I were in their shoes. Kudos to NYT for covering it despite their bias.
Paper (subject of the NYT article): https://www.nber.org/papers/w33844
Because this violates my priors, and appears a high-quality RCT, I found this very interesting.
>The researchers specified in advance seven measures on which they thought children in high-cash families would outperform the others. But after four years they found no group differences on any of the yardsticks, which aimed for a comprehensive look at child development.
There are several reasons to discount the evidence, such as the Covid pandemic conditions. But... there are always reasons to discount, that's how post-hoc bias works.
So seems like important evidence to learn from, especially if you still believe in transfers and want them to provide a good ROI.
>While researchers publicized the earlier, more promising results, the follow-up study was released quietly and has received little attention. Several co-authors declined to comment on the results, saying that it was unclear why the payments had no effect.
Sad response, but understandable if I were in their shoes. Kudos to NYT for covering it despite their bias.