The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pitfalls Of Participatory Programs: Evidence From A Randomized Evaluation In Education In India
Open accessAbstract
Participation of beneficiaries in the monitoring of public services is increasingly seen as key to improving their efficiency. In India, the current government flagship program on universal primary education organizes community members, specifically locally elected leaders and parents of children enrolled in public schools, into committees and gives these powers over resource allocation, monitoring and management of school performance. However, in a baseline survey this paper finds that people were not aware of the existence of these committees and their potential for improving education. The paper evaluates three different interventions to encourage beneficiaries' participation: providing information, training community members in a new testing tool, and training and organizing volunteers to hold remedial reading camps for illiterate children. The authors find that these interventions had no impact on community involvement in public schools, and no impact on teacher effort or learning outcomes in those schools. However, the intervention that trained volunteers to teach children to read had large impact on activity outside public schools -- local youths volunteered to be trained, and children who attended these camps substantially improved their reading skills. These results suggest that citizens face substantial constraints in participating to improve the public education system, even when they care about education and are willing to do something to improve it
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects
Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00733.x · Cited by 2,719
Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India
Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235 · Cited by 1,398
Self-citationHistory, Institutions, and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India
Banerjee, A., & Iyer, L. (2005) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828054825574 · Cited by 1,268
Self-citation
Cited by
Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Fox, J. A. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 · Cited by 803
Does Transparency Improve Governance?
Kosack, S., & Fung, A. (2014) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-032210-144356 · Cited by 420
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives
Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013) · Development Policy Review · doi:10.1111/dpr.12017 · Cited by 339
Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement
Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.014 · Cited by 332
Widgets or Watchdogs?: Conceptual explorations in social accountability
Joshi, A., & Houtzager, P. P. (2012) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.657837 · Cited by 237
Metadata
- Authors
- Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S.
- Venue
- World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks
- Publisher
- World Bank, Washington, DC
- Published
- 2008-03
- OpenAlex
- W3121946612
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 3
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pitfalls Of Participatory Programs: Evidence From A Randomized Evaluation In Education In India. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1596/1813-9450-4584
- The paper
- Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S. (2008). Pitfalls Of Participatory Programs: Evidence From A Randomized Evaluation In Education In India. World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4584
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.