2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Development: Accounting for Local Costs and Noisy Impacts

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even if coordination of methodological standards was resolved, challenges to external validity remain. As pointed out by Evans and Popova (2016), program Costs differ greatly across contexts even for the same type of intervention. These Cost differences naturally result in large variations in efficiency estimates.…”
Section: Table 32: Willingness To Pay For Impact Cost and Vfm Infomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Even if coordination of methodological standards was resolved, challenges to external validity remain. As pointed out by Evans and Popova (2016), program Costs differ greatly across contexts even for the same type of intervention. These Cost differences naturally result in large variations in efficiency estimates.…”
Section: Table 32: Willingness To Pay For Impact Cost and Vfm Infomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These Cost differences naturally result in large variations in efficiency estimates. Uncertainty in effect estimates, recall bias in expenditures, and scale can substantially influence cost-effectiveness estimates (Evans and Popova 2016). Even so, transparency in Cost reporting and assumptions can improve crosscontext comparisons and usefully quantify the nature of the variation in implementation costs.…”
Section: Table 32: Willingness To Pay For Impact Cost and Vfm Infomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…To further assess the estimates, we carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis, following the method used by and Evans and Popova (2016) (see Section S.1 in the supplemental appendix for the details). To simplify the analysis, we considered only the cost (prices) of the solar lanterns, ignoring other factors such as research administration costs, reduced kerosene expenditure, and product maintenance opportunity costs.…”
Section: Educational Inputsmentioning
confidence: 99%