We present results from six randomized control trials of an integrated approach to improve livelihoods amongst the very poor. The approach combines the transfer of a productive asset with consumption support, training and coaching plus savings encouragement and health education and/or services. Results from the implementation of the same basic program, adapted to a wide variety of geographic and institutional contexts and with multiple implementing partners, show statistically significant, costeffective impacts on consumption (fueled mostly by increases in self-employment income) and psychosocial status of the targeted households. The impact on the poor households lasted at least a year after all implementation ended. It is possible to make sustainable improvements in the economic status of the poor with a relatively short-term intervention. † MIT, CEPR, NBER and Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) ‡ MIT, CEPR, NBER and J-PAL

Does completing a household survey change the later behavior of those surveyed? In three field studies of health and two of microlending, we randomly assigned subjects to be surveyed about health and/or household finances and then measured subsequent use of a related product with data that does not rely on subjects' selfreports. In the three health experiments, we find that being surveyed increases use of water treatment products and take-up of medical insurance. Frequent surveys on reported diarrhea also led to biased estimates of the impact of improved source water quality. In two microlending studies, we do not find an effect of being surveyed on borrowing behavior. The results suggest that limited attention could play an important but context-dependent role in consumer choice, with the implication that researchers should reconsider whether, how, and how much to survey their subjects. measurement effects | question-behavior effects | Hawthorne effects | survey methodology | models of attention M any data collection efforts in the social and clinical sciences rely on surveys. Psychologists and marketing and survey experts have long held that surveying a subject can draw attention to risks or choices with ordinarily little salience and thereby induce changes in subsequent behavior (1, 2), but conclusive evidence on this question from which a causal relationship can be clearly established has been limited. We provide evidence from a variety of settings that the act of being surveyed can affect behavior and confound estimates of parameters that initially motivated the data collection."Survey" or "interview" effects may occur even when the survey does not ask specifically about intent to engage in the behavior of interest or provide new information, and even when subjects do not know that their later behavior is being observed by researchers. Hence survey effects are conceptually distinct from, but closely related to, "question-behavior" (i.e., mere measurement or self-prophecy) and Hawthorne effects. Question-behavior effects arise when behavior changes as a result of asking subjects for intentions or predictions regarding future behavior effects (3-6). Hawthorne effects occur when behavior changes as a result of a subject responding to being treated and observed, as part of an experiment (7). These effects are also related to "push polling" and other efforts to manipulate subject behavior by posing hypothetical questions (8).We describe results from five different field experiments, in four developing countries, on whether being surveyed affects subsequent behavior. The first experiment randomizes the frequency of surveys on health behavior and diarrhea incidence, in a context in which other water quality interventions are also randomly provided. More-frequent surveying leads to lower reported child diarrhea and cleaner water (as measured by the presence of detectable chlorine in household drinking water). We posit that frequent surveying serves as a reminder to invest in water purification, although because sub...

We study the demand for household water connections in urban Morocco, and the effect of such connections on household welfare. In the northern city of Tangiers, among homeowners without a private connection to the city's water grid, a random subset was offered a simplified procedure to purchase a household connection on credit (at a zero percent interest rate). Take-up was high, at 69%. Because all households in our sample had access to the water grid through free public taps (often located fairly close to their homes), household connections did not lead to any improvement in the quality of the water households consumed; and despite significant increase in the quantity of water consumed, we find no change in the incidence of waterborne illnesses. Nevertheless, we find that households are willing to pay a substantial amount of money to have a private tap at home. Being connected generates important time gains, which are used for leisure and social activities, rather than productive activities. Because water is often a source of tension between households, household connections improve social integration and reduce conflict. Overall, within 6 months, self-reported well-being improved substantially among households in the treatment group, despite the financial cost of the connection. Our results suggest that facilitating access to credit for households to finance lump sum quality-of-life investments can significantly increase welfare, even if those investments do not result in income or health gains.