Key message 3 – Benefits for the ultra-poor do not come at the expense of other households
A potential concern might be that the intervention has negative impacts on those who do not receive the programme in targeted villages. To test for potential negative effects, the research design tracks over 21,000 households, 6,700 of which are ultra-poor and 15,100 of which come from other wealth classes.
Gains to beneficiary households are not obtained at the expense of other (non-targeted) households in the same communities. The programme does not reduce consumption expenditure or savings of households ineligible for the programme, in fact, business assets of non-targeted households actually increase over time. This may be because beneficiary households are sharing some of their new resources with others or requiring less support from others. Findings are consistent with wider evidence that increasing savings amongst the poor has positive spillovers (Dupas et al. 2015). The value of land owned by the upper classes does fall, as the value of land owned by the ultra-poor increases, but the drop accounts for only 2% of the value of land owned by the upper classes.