Social Impact Bonds: Promises Versus Facts. What Does the Recent Scientific Literature Tell Us?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) and similar performance-based investments has been spreading around the world ever since the first SIB was issued in the United Kingdom in 2010. At the same time, such investments have given rise to questions regarding the complexity and cost of the contracting mechanisms involved, the possible contradictions between the various objectives pursued, and even the validity of the theoretical premises underpinning them (Albertson et al., 2018a). The objective of this paper is to take stock of the existing knowledge about SIBs and similar performance-based investments, through an overview of recent scientific literature. Relying on a targeted review of the literature and empirical studies, the idea is to compile the arguments that have been mobilized to support, nuance or possibly undermine the implementation of SIBs and similar financing tools. The objective is to provide answers to the question: Do SIBs work? And if yes, under which conditions? After explaining what SIBs are, how they function and how they have developed, the authors propose a synthesis of the arguments from recent scientific literature both supporting and criticizing SIBs. The article concludes that despite the possible improvements and opportunities of these bonds, caution is advised in applying them for as long as empirical evidence is insufficient with regard to their effectiveness and the conditions under which they might be considered appropriate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".