Science and technology
Preventing AIDS
A drug called money
Feb 15th 2012, 19:18 by G.C.
HALFWAY between marriage and prostitution lies the sugar daddy. Not quite a husband, not quite a John, he looks after his girl and expects her to be loyal to him—a loyalty that is frequently unreciprocated. But if you are a poor African teenager, having a sugar daddy is not such a bad deal. Eventually, Mr Right may come along and in the meantime life is, as the term suggests, a lot sweeter than it might otherwise be. Except for one thing. In many parts of Africa, relationships between older men and younger women are one of the main transmitters of HIV.
With that in mind, it has often been hypothesised that if teenage girls were given an alternative income—one that might, for instance, allow them to stay on at school—they would be less likely to get infected. It is a plausible hypothesis but one that has not, until now, actually been tested.
That lack has just been remedied by Berk Özler, of the World Bank, and his colleagues. In a paper just published by the Lancet, they describe how they conducted a randomised clinical trial of the idea that money, and money alone, can stop the spread of HIV.
They carried out their experiment in the Zomba district of Malawi, recruiting nearly 1,300 never-married women between the ages of 13 and 22. They divided Zomba into 176 areas, and each participant in a given area was treated in the same way. That area-wide treatment was, however, decided at random by a computer. In some areas, which acted as controls, the women were simply monitored. In some they and their parents were given small amounts of money each month (between $1 and $5 for the women, and between $4 and $10 for the parents), again decided at random by the computer. In a third set of areas money was doled out in a similar way, but only in exchange for a promise by the woman to attend school. If she failed to do so, no money was forthcoming.
When the results were in, the team found that the unpaid women had suffered more than twice the HIV infection rate experienced by the paid women over the course of the 18 months of the experiment, and four times the infection rate of genital herpes. Intriguingly, there was no difference between the infection rate suffered by those required to go to school and those who received the money unconditionally. Whether the actual amount of money mattered was not clear. For that to emerge a larger sample would be needed.
What is abundantly clear, however, was that the money did make women behave differently. They had younger boyfriends than those in the control group, and had sex less frequently. Liberated from the need to find a sugar daddy, they could behave in a safer way.
Those attempting to stop the spread of AIDS have, in the past, tried many ways of getting people to change their behaviour in order to reduce the risk of infection. They have extolled, exhorted and even threatened, all to little avail. They have not, though, previously, resorted to bribery. But it seems to work.
In this blog, our correspondents report on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy. The blog takes its name from Charles Babbage, a Victorian mathematician and engineer who designed a mechanical computer.
Advertisement
Babbage audio
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Should gay marriage be legal in America?
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Mitt Romney at Liberty University: An unnecessary speech
- Cartoon politics: Julia's world
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Lexington: Peter David
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- J.P. Morgan’s trading mistakes: A billion here, a billion there
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- The future of customer support: Outsourcing is so last year
- Greece fails to form a government: Adrift
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Suppressing dissent: The emperor does know
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Interplanetary internet: The orbit wide web
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
it's Maaslov's pyramid of needs - if they have shelter & food, they can behave more intelligently
it's Maaslov's pyramid of needs - if they have shelter & food, they can behave more intelligently
What a surprising surprise!
Would poor people have less problems if they were less poor? Maybe they'd fight less, go to school more, and be more productive?
Incredible what solidarity can do, hey?
In a US government study, 1834 volunteers were tested for HIV between 2005 and 2008 and "No seroconversions were observed in Nairobi women or men in Nairobi or Cape Town who were not MSM". It also says, "Paying for sex was inversely associated with HIV infection". This is surprising.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22227488
A newspaper in Boston, Massachusetts reported last August,that many college students (both male & female) have sugar daddies & Cougars to help with their education. I believe its worldwide. The ones in the west may or may not be disease free or may have easier access to condoms & sexual health education.
it is really good finding that help to make new strategies in the prevention of HIV in Africa. I would love the money were generated by their own rather given in cash to actual impact of money they earn. I believe the findings are good enough to use as starting point in many African countries in designing a different strategies from the usual one.Finally, i have some reservation on some of the words used like, "But if you are a poor African teenager, having a sugar daddy is not such a bad deal."
Hmmm... Curious article. So if you have money, it should translate that you are moral?
Education is the only way to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS. If Sub- Saharan Africa can improve the condition of education, and model it in such a way that young people pursue further studies i.e. tertiary education, and find professional employment so as to be economically emancipated; then yes, we can stop AIDS. The Zimbabwean model of education, although it's carbon copy of the british, proves to inspire a serious professional ambition amongst young people.
If you have money, you are able to avoid making immoral choices in order to provide yourself with the basic necessities of life.
It is shocking to me that you would read about a study and flat out deny it's results.
have you read and understood the article?
have you read and understood the article?
"But if you are a poor African teenager, having a sugar daddy is not such a bad deal."
That sentence just made me sick to my stomach. Even if HIV weren't a threat, it is still in many cases a bad deal. It might provide the opportunity for subsistence, but in general it means that girls don't respect themselves and are often not respected by their community.
I would add that the finding is definitely important, but that first paragraph is dreadful writing.
It's hard to care about respect when worried about starvation.
Agreed. However, that doesn't mean that it's a good deal.
It's like saying it's not such a bad deal when the schoolyard bully says that he won't beat you up if you give him your lunch money.
It is work like this which proves the perspective presented by Charles Murray wrong: more money and you get a different morality. He shoves that point aside to argue there is a decline in working class morals - for which he ignores any points that contradict his thesis - when actual research shows lack of money is a major behavioral driver. When the working classes are losing ground economically, one should expect more destructive behavior.
Great point. I was going to say that morals are the priviledge of those living beyond substinence level; however it seems that morals would have derived out of behaviors that were detrimental to the overall survival of the group, rather than just the individual. Instead it would seem that morals evolve depending on your level of weath and/or security. And I won't ramble on and wade any deeper into the philosophical pool; I'll simply admit I'm out of my depth already.
To quote Brecht: "First comes food, then comes morality."
To quote the immortal Terry Pratchett "...waiting on the street corner for Mr Right, or in any case Mr Right Amount..."
The study reminds me of the arguments about paying coffee growers more to prevent them growing coca. Certainly commendable and verifiable in small areas over a limited period of time but, unfortunately, the market tends to adjust over time and if you are just creating money you are only introducing an inflationary pressure. Furthermore, I suspect a case of correlation rather than causality with attending school and not money likely to be the determining factor. Fertility rates in the West have fallen as educational standards for women have risen. If you take that as the basis for argument you could suggest that we allow women too much education or make birth control too easily accessible. I support neither point but the premises are worthy of discussion.
Quoting you "Furthermore, I suspect a case of correlation rather than causality with attending school and not money likely to be the determining factor.".
Quoting the article "Intriguingly, there was no difference between the infection rate suffered by those required to go to school and those who received the money unconditionally.".
That premise you suggest is based on the assumption that more, generally poorly-cared for, children are better. The reason the birth rate declines with a woman's education level is because she realizes the enormity involved in performing a role such as parenthood properly. I would think children raised with attention, dedication, consideration, adequate sustenance (and on and on and on) would be preferred for a society rather than a plethora of under-supported children (such as those in this study) who lack guidance or educated parents, left to scramble for an increasingly declining amount of resources.
I don't think that wealth determines parental fitness at all.
It is true that those who parents and grandparents were better parents are better equipped to succeed. But I think this is correlation and not causation, the child of the poor school teacher/preacher will have just the attention, dedication, consideration, and so on that the child of the wealthy receive.
In fact, I think that many of the wealthy provide less dedication, consideration, and so on. Sometimes what they do most differently is provide an example (of success) and expectation (of success) and opportunity (for better education).
Hi, JM3. I didn't mean to suggest wealthy people were better parents. My post above was discussing women at higher education levels, although not necessarily wealthy (but you are right, they are more likely to be). When I was discussing less educated women I was referencing low-income individuals though because even though being educated does not necessarily mean you will be wealthy, not being educated as equally as your peers does put you behind the curve when it comes to income.
Artemio was suggesting a debate on whether educating women is a good thing because educated women have less children. I don't think it is even up for debate and was probably silly to respond to it. More educated men AND woman tend to think more of the long-term needs of children compared to what they can provide before having them and as you suggest, are more likely to provide examples and expectations of success.
I don't think I would call that bribery; that would imply that the young woman's first compunction would be to have sex with older men for cash, and need to be given money to do otherwise.
Instead, having a small monetary safety net allows their true preference to show itself - having a boyfriend of a similar age and not becoming a de-facto prostitute just to survive.