Comparar métodos

	Cash Transfer Evaluation	Microfinance Impact Assessment
Campo	Development Studies	Development Studies
Familia	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Año de origen	1997	2010
Autor original	PROGRESA/Oportunidades (Mexico); Santiago Levy; World Bank evaluation programmes	Dean Karlan, Jonathan Zinman; Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster & Kinnan; J-PAL
Tipo	Programme impact evaluation	Programme impact evaluation
Fuente seminal	Fiszbein, A., & Schady, N. (2009). Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty. World Bank Policy Research Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. ISBN: 9780821373521	Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015). The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22–53.
Alias	CCT/UCT Impact Evaluation, Conditional Cash Transfer Evaluation, Cash Transfer Impact Assessment, Social Cash Transfer Evaluation	Microcredit Impact Evaluation, Microfinance Impact Evaluation, Microcredit Impact Assessment, Microsavings Impact Assessment
Relacionados	4	4
Resumen	Cash transfer evaluation is the body of impact-evaluation practice used to measure the effects of giving money directly to poor households — conditional on behaviours such as school enrolment and clinic visits (CCTs) or unconditional (UCTs) — on consumption, schooling, nutrition, health, and broader welfare. Pioneered by Mexico's PROGRESA/Oportunidades programme in the late 1990s, which built a randomised phase-in into its rollout, the field has produced some of the most influential causal evidence in development economics and now spans dozens of countries and hundreds of studies.	Microfinance impact assessment is the set of methods used to measure the causal effects of small loans, savings, and related financial services — long promoted as a tool against poverty — on borrowers' income, business activity, consumption, and empowerment. After two decades in which observational studies reported large gains, a wave of randomized evaluations from around 2010 onwards, exemplified by Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, and Kinnan's Hyderabad study with Spandana and Karlan and Zinman's randomised credit-scoring work, delivered a more sober and credible verdict.