income (by 13 percent) for households in these villages (Boret et al. 2021). _CSF’s_ effects on poverty reduction persisted over the nine-year study period and the projects also significantly increased economic development in the surrounding area<sup>26</sup> (BenYishay et al. 2019). In Nigeria, the _Second National Fadama Development Project (Fadama II)_ increased the mean income of beneficiaries by 40-60 percent and increased the value of productive assets owned by community groups, especially for the poor and for women’s groups (Nkonya et al. 2012). In Nepal, an impact evaluation found that the _PAF_ project increased per capita consumption by 19 percent (Parajuli et al. 2012). Participation of villages in the _BRA-KDP_ project in Aceh, Indonesia, which primarily provided cash assistance to conflict victims rather than public infrastructure, was associated with an 11-point reduction in the share classified as poor by village heads.

Livelihoods-focused CDD projects that use a self-help group (SHG) model to mobilize poor women have also improved household income and savings.<sup>27</sup> Evaluations of the flagship _India National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM)_ have generally found that the program improved household incomes (Institute of Rural Management 2017; Kochar et al. 2020; Singh and Pandey 2019). For example, a rigorous impact evaluation found that an additional 2.5 years of _NRLM_ SHG membership increased total household income by approximately 19 percent (Kochar 2020).<sup>28</sup> Studies of _NRLM_ , _JEEViKA_ , and the _Cambodia Livelihoods Enhancement and Associations Among the Poor (LEAP)_ project found that these projects increased household savings, consistent with the SHG’s model of encouraging and facilitating savings practices (Pandey et al. 2019; Kochar et al. 2019; Datta et al. 2015; Ban et al. 2020). Findings are less conclusive on the impacts on household consumption, expenditures, and assets. In India, an impact evaluation found that the _Andhra Pradesh District Poverty Initiatives Project (APDPIP)_ increased per capita consumption by 11 percentage points; however, studies of the _NRLM_ , _Tamil Nadu PVP_ , and _JEEViKa_ projects did not find these projects to improve households’ total or consumption expenditure (Institute of Rural Management Anand 2017; Khanna et al. 2015; Datta et al. 2015). Relatedly, while there is some evidence that these projects increase assets for beneficiary households, this effect varies depending on the asset type (Institute of Rural Management Anand 2017; Khanna et al. 2015; Datta 2015).

Other studies show more mixed or null results on economic welfare. <mark>In Afghanistan, an RCT of the</mark> _<mark>NSP</mark>_ <mark>found that the project had strong positive effects on perceived economic welfare, especially among women, but no strong effects on household income, consumption, or assets (Beath et al. 2013). Similarly, an evaluation of</mark> _<mark>KALAHI-CIDSS</mark>_ <mark>showed no effects on household poverty status or labor force participation and earnings (Beatty et al. 2018).</mark> Variation in a project’s overall design, the type of subprojects funded, and the per capita allocation of funds likely affect CDD’s impacts on economic welfare outcomes.<sup>29</sup> For example, subprojects chosen by the community that consist primarily of improving clean water and sanitation or health services may not necessarily have direct impacts on per capita income in the short or

> 26 As measured by nighttime light output. Each completed _CSF_ project increased the NTL output by 20 percent. The median area received four CSF projects and experienced a gain of nearly 80 percent in NTL output. Rural transport projects are the main driver of these results and the impacts are especially large in more densely populated rural areas (BenYishay et al. 2019).

> 27 CDD projects with a SHG model are similar to traditional CDD projects in that they provide transfers of funds to the community level and communities decide how to allocate these funds. However, in the SHG model, the funds are typically transferred to a community-based savings organization and the funds are used for livelihoods activities rather than for infrastructure/services.

28 A recent review of evidence from SHG programs in the South Asia region, including non-World Bank-supported programs, reported mixed findings on the impacts on income (Javed et al. 2022).

29 For example, early versions of a non-World Bank financed project in the Democratic Republic of Congo allocated only ~US$ 1 per capita so it is not surprising that evaluations found no evidence of positive impacts on household economic welfare (Humphreys et al. 2012).

15