Author(s): Michelle Rao
Looking for co-authors: No { message_status }
Program evaluations are motivated in part by a desire to improve policy effectiveness. Yet there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of evaluation itself. This paper examines the systematic relationship between program evaluations and changes in policy spending, in the context of Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean. Using a novel dataset of 128 program evaluations mapped to spending on the corresponding evaluated programs, I find a robust zero relationship between research results and spending. This holds for several definitions of evaluation outcomes: more statistically significant, larger magnitude, more surprising, or more positively framed results, do not correspond with larger increases in spending. As policymakers may learn from cumulative evidence rather than individual studies, I then use a Bayesian hierarchical approach to aggregate evaluations. I find a zero association between a country’s cumulative evidence base and its spending. Finally, I explore mechanisms for this result by considering heterogeneous responses to evaluations that are more credible, actionable, or generalizable. I find that credibility and generalizability are unrelated to spending, but evaluations conducted quickly (within four years of the effect year) and attributable to the political party in power, are significantly predictive of spending. Thus, timeliness may be an overlooked aspect of the evidence-to-policy pipeline.
Published: 2024-12-28 13:31:14 PT
Stage: Working Paper
Fields: Public Economics, Development and Growth
Research Group(s): Playground
Referee Reports: No referee reports yet. (Add your report)
Versions: v1 (12/28/2024)