Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
de Hoop, J., & Rosati, F. C. (2016). Labor intensive public works and children's activities: The case of Malawi. Retrieved from http://ucw-project.org/attachment/11052017285Public_work_malawi_dehoop_rosati.pdf
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to assess the impact of Malawai’s Labour Intensive Public Works program (LIPW) on children’s school participation and involvement in paid work and household chores.
- The study was a randomized controlled trial where eligible villages were randomly assigned to a control group that would not receive any benefits, or to one of four treatment groups that differed by agricultural season (lean vs. post-harvest) and payment schedule (lump sum vs. installments). Using household survey data, the authors analyzed the impact of the treatment conditions on school attendance and work 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months after implementation.
- The study found that post-harvest program participation was significantly related to higher rates of paid work 6 months after participation for boys, whereas lean harvest program participation was significantly related to higher rates of household chores for girls one year after treatment. Lean program participation was also significantly related to school attendance 6 months after participation for all children.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Malawi’s LIPW program, and not to other factors.
Features of the Intervention
The Malawi Labour Intensive Public Works program (LIPW) is a cash transfer program, which has been in place for about 20 years, where households can temporarily work in public infrastructure projects and in exchange receive financial payment. The intervention took place in Malawi and was implemented by the local government. The program aimed to include low-income and vulnerable villages using a combination of established criteria and the judgement of local leadership and committees. The program was offered to households during the lean agriculture season or during the post-harvest agriculture season, and would either receive payment in one lump sum or in installments.
Features of the Study
The study was a randomized controlled trial where 183 villages in Malawi were randomly assigned to the control group or one of the four treatment groups. Specifically, the treatment villages were randomly assigned to the post-harvest or lean group, which differed in terms of which agricultural seasons they received the second wave of the program, and were also randomly assigned to two payment schedule groups, where participants were either paid for their work at once or in installments. However, the report did not share results on differences between the two payment schedule groups.
Sixteen households within each village were randomly selected for participation. The treatment group households were able to participate in the work-based cash transfer program, while the control households did not receive any benefits during the study. The authors originally used the World Bank’s Integrated Household Survey (IHS-3) as a baseline measure but it did not include information for 24 villages. Therefore, the study used a different household survey to collect demographic and outcome data at baseline and follow-up. To assess program impact, the researchers compared child work and school attendance outcomes between the treatment and control groups at three follow-up time-points: 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the program began. Child work was measured by whether the child had worked at all in the past seven days or conducted household chores in the last day. School attendance was measured by whether children currently attend school, and also by whether they regularly attend school, which was determined through assessing whether they missed less than two weeks of school since the last survey. Analyses of child work participation outcomes included 2,889 children who were 10-16 years old at baseline when the intervention began, and analyses of school attendance outcomes included 5,467 children who were 5-16 years old at baseline.
Findings
Working children/Child labor
- Boys in the post-harvest season treatment group had a significantly higher rate of participation in work activities than boys in the control group 6 months after the start of the intervention. However, there were no significant differences in the work participation rates between boys in the post-harvest season treatment group and boys in the control group for the other two follow-up time points (3 months, 1 year).
- Boys in the lean treatment group did not have a significantly different rate of work participation than those in the control group for any of the follow-up time points (3 months, 6 months, 1 year).
- Girls in both the post-harvest and lean treatment groups did not have a significantly different rate of work participation than those in the control group at any of the three follow-up times (3 months, 6 months, 1 year).
- Girls in the lean season treatment group had a significantly higher rate of participation in household chores than girls in the control group one year after the start of the intervention. However, there were no significant differences in the work participation rates between girls in the lean season treatment group and girls in the control group for the other two follow-up time points (3 months, 6 months).
- Girls in the post-harvest treatment group did not have a significantly different rate of work participation than those in the control group for any of the follow-up time points (3 months, 6 months, 1 year).
- Boys in both the post-harvest and lean treatment groups did not have a significantly different rate of work participation than those in the control group at any of the three follow-up times (3 months, 6 months, 1 year).
Education (School participation/enrollment)
- School attendance was significantly higher for children in the lean treatment group than those in the control group 6 months after the program began. There were no significant differences in child attendance between the lean treatment and control group for any other follow-up time points.
- There were no significant differences in child attendance between the post-harvest treatment group and the control group for each of the three time points.
- There were also no significant differences between either the post-harvest or lean treatment groups and the control group in whether children regularly attended school at any follow-up time point.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors noted limitations with the baseline data. First, the IHS-3 data were unavailable for 24 villages. The authors used another survey to collect a second baseline to have data for all villages. However, baseline data were collected after program implementation in six percent of households. If the baseline data were collected prior to the start of the program, it is possible that the treatment effect would be different.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Malawi’s LIPW program, and not to other factors.