I once saw a miracle. It was near a ragged wall of broken rocks
near Udaipur. One side of the wall had patches of yellowing grass,
not taller than an inch, with the occasional dry stalk. The other
side, protected from goats by the wall, was a sea of green and
yellow grass, up to a couple of feet tall. Here was something
utterly simple that had the power to bring life back to these barren
hillsides.
Or so I thought. It took a friend, familiar with
the area, less than five minutes to set me
straight.
I was forgetting, he observed, all the grass from
the unwalled side that had already fed some passing goat, and all
the grass that someone had cut and sold. If we added up all the
grass that had grown on the unwalled side, while the grass on the
other side grew tall, we would probably end up with close to what
was there across the wall. We might still support building the wall
on the ground that tall grass is good for soil conservation and
water retention, but we should not be expecting a miracle.
It
is easy, especially if you are an enthusiast, to find miracles where
there are none. Assessing benefits of an intervention, as I learnt
the hard way, requires thinking hard about the appropriate metric
and it is easy to get it wrong. For example, as Jonathan Murdoch has
shown, the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh has shown the way in
profitable lending to the poor, in part by counting its fresh
deposits as a part of its earning. But it has forgotten that these
deposits would eventually need to be repaid.
If measuring
benefits is hard, measuring costs can be a nightmare. You have an
innovative programme that involves the community in managing the
local greenery and it is quite apparent that your programme is doing
wonderful things for the environment. But you also know that you
have a lot of charisma and suspect that it might have a lot to do
with the way the community has involved itself in your programme.
How do you, short of cloning yourself, even start to come up with
the cost of reproducing the programme elsewhere? Making the
programme scaleable from the beginning is probably the best way to
avoid this problem, but it does impose constraints on the process of
innovation.
Once you have solved the problem of measuring
costs and benefits, you hit the really hard problem — that of
figuring what would have happened had you not implemented the
programme. For example, you have a novel scheme for teaching
children mathematics. At the end of one year of teaching, the
children are clearly doing much better. You want to congratulate
yourself, announce a miracle, except that you realise that the
children are also a year older and have spent an additional year in
school. That itself would make them better at solving problems.
Indeed in the area of education it is only a rare programme, whose
effect outweighs just what you would get by letting the child spend
another year at school. How then are you supposed to figure out how
much of the improvement in test scores is your miracle, and how much
comes from the normal process of growing older?
You can try
to find a group of kids who look and feel like the kids in your
programme and use their improvement as a benchmark, but how do you
determine that these kids were just like your kids? The only really
reliable way to solve this problem is to do what drug companies do
when they test new products: randomly assign the programme to some
locations and not to others, and then compare results. This is
actually easier than it might seem: many non-governmental
organisations, such as pratham in Mumbai
and Seva Mandir in Udaipur, have shown us the use of this technique.
All this takes commitment and forward planning, as well as
painful care to ensure that costs and benefits are accurately
measured.
Miracles in social interventions are almost always
announced without being subjected to this crucial test. This is
perhaps why, after so many miracles, the world’s problems look as
daunting as ever.
Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee is Ford
Foundation International professor of economics at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA