MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388560247 · doi:10.18235/0005259

The Impact of Subsidy Delivery Method on Savings Behavior: Experimental Evidence

2023· preprint· en· W4388560247 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abhijit Banerjee, Claudia Martínez, Esteban Puentes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsSubsidySavings accountBank accountCashDownstream (manufacturing)Cash transfersTransfer (computing)BusinessEconomicsMonetary economicsTransactional leadershipFinancePublic economicsPaymentMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the impact of offering conditional cash transfer (CCT) beneficiaries the choice to receive cash transfers in bank accounts instead of cash. We investigate the effects on savings behavior and downstream outcomes such as assets and trust. We find, on average, no significant impact on overall savings or downstream outcomes. However, among individuals with nonpositive balances prior to the offering, we observe an increase in balances in savings accounts and in the transactional accounts in which the subsidies were initially deposited. These findings underscore the potential of using bank accounts to encourage savings, particularly for individuals with limited prior savings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207