The blog post excluded any other study from its review than those evaluating a GiveDirectly CT, called the private study the "best study" (sorry Drs. @jhaushofer , @AndrewZeitlin and co-PIs), and then essentially declared spillovers in CTs not an issue...
-
-
Show this thread
-
What was the hurry? What couldn't wait until the paper is public or better peer-reviewed?
Show this thread -
Whatever it is, I hope that it is worth the hit in credibility
@GiveWell will take...Show this thread -
Excluded perfectly good (and all public/well-published work) evidence from other CT studies, including by
@seema_econ , myself, and@eeshani_kandpal). Doesn't matter if they would change your conclusions or not. Do it well and thoroughly or not at all: not this half-baked crap.Show this thread -
Also, are you guys saying that if the spillovers are on anything other than consumption, they are unimportant?
Show this thread -
Never mind if other papers showed increased in stunting or decreased psychological wellbeing among spillover groups within villages: irrelevant for the task at hand, whatever that task is...
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The paper currently muddles spillovers with externalities, general equilibrium effects and unintended consequences. The critique of general equilibrium effects is also a reflection on targeting.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Terrible reason. Make the paper public or don’t update. Question, how many other charities did they do this for?
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.