Page 34 - 31OCT2019E

people who are most affected. resources, but in different forms and at pupils had strong positive effects, even
The Laureates’ research findings — different times. In one study, one group in the medium term. This study was the
and those of the researchers following was given more textbooks, while an- start of an interactive process, in which
in their footsteps — have dramatically other study examined free school meals. new research results went hand in
improved the ability to fight poverty in Because chance determined which hand with increasingly large-scale pro-
practice. As a direct result of one of their school got what, there were no aver- grammes to support pupils. These pro-
studies, more than five million Indian age differences between the different grammes have now reached more than
children have benefitted from effective groups at the start of the experiment. The 100,000 Indian schools.
programmes of remedial tutoring in researchers could thus credibly link later One important issue is whether med-
schools. Another example is the heavy differences in learning outcomes to the icine and healthcare should be charged
subsidies for preventive healthcare that various forms of support. The experi- for and, if so, what they should cost. A
have been introduced in many countries. ments showed that neither more text- field experiment by Kremer and co-au-
In order to combat global poverty, one books nor free school meals made any thor investigated how the demand for
must identify the most effective forms of difference to learning outcomes. If the deworming pills for parasitic infections
action. There has long been an aware- textbooks had any positive effect, it only was affected by price. They found that 75
ness of the huge differences in average applied to the very best pupils. per cent of parents gave their children
productivity between rich and poor Later field experiments have shown these pills when the medicine was free,
countries. However, as Abhijit Banerjee that the primary problem in many low- compared to 18 per cent when they cost
and Esther Duflo have noted, productiv- less than a US dollar, which is still heavily
ity differs greatly, not only between rich subsidised. Subsequently, many similar
and poor countries but also within poor As a direct result of experiments have found the same thing:
countries. Some individuals or com- one of the findings of poor people are extremely price-sensi-
panies use the latest technology, while tive regarding investments in preventive
others (which produce similar goods or the Laureates, which healthcare.
services) use outdated means of produc- Low service quality is another expla-
tion. The low average productivity is thus included Banerjee, nation why poor families invest so little
largely due to some individuals and com- more than five million in preventive measures. One example is
panies falling behind. Does this reflect a that staff at the health centres that are
lack of credit, poorly designed policies, Indian children have responsible for vaccinations are often
or that people find it difficult to make benefitted from absent from work. Banerjee, Duflo et al.
entirely rational investment decisions? investigated whether mobile vaccina-
The research approach designed by this effective programmes tion clinics — where the care staff were
year’s Laureates deals with exactly these of remedial tutoring always on site — could fix this problem.
types of questions. Vaccination rates tripled in the villages
The Laureates’ very first studies exam- in schools that were randomly selected to have
ined how to deal with problems relating access to these clinics, at 18 per cent com-
to education. In low-income countries, pared to 6 per cent. This increased fur-
textbooks are scarce and children of- income countries is not a lack of re- ther, to 39 per cent, if families received
ten go to school hungry. Would pupils’ sources. Instead, the biggest problem is a bag of lentils as a bonus when they
results improve if they had access to that teaching is not sufficiently adapted vaccinated their children. Because the
more textbooks? Or would giving them to the pupils’ needs. In the first of these mobile clinic had a high level of fixed
free school meals be more effective? In experiments, Banerjee, Duflo et al. studied costs, the total cost per vaccination
the mid-1990s, Michael Kremer and his remedial tutoring programmes for actually halved, despite the additional
colleagues decided to move part of their pupils in two Indian cities. Schools in expense of the lentils.
research from their universities in the Mumbai and Vadodara were given In the vaccination study, incentives
north-eastern US to rural western Kenya access to new teaching assistants who and better availability of care did not
in order to answer these kinds of ques- would support children with special completely solve the problem, as 61
tions. They performed a number of field needs. These schools were ingeniously per cent of children remained partially
experiments in partnership with a local and randomly placed in different groups. immunised. The low vaccination rate
non-governmental organisation (NGO). The experiment clearly showed that in many poor countries probably has
Kremer and his colleagues took a help targeting the weakest pupils was an other causes, of which one is that people
large number of schools that needed effective measure in the short and are not always completely rational. This
considerable support and randomly medium term. explanation may also be key to other
divided them into different groups. The The study by Banerjee, Duflo, et al. observations which, at least initially,
schools in these groups all received extra showed that targeted support for weak appear difficult to understand.

Tehelka / 31 october 2019 34 www.Tehelka.com