Promising careers? A critical analysis of a randomised control trial in community health worker recruitment in Zambia.

This paper examines an influential randomised control trial (RCT) that aimed to identify how to recruit the best community health workers (CHWs) in Zambia. The economists who designed the RCT found that when they used job advertisement posters that emphasised future career prospects, they attracted applicants who were more "effective" health workers (according to various quantitative measures). The Zambian government accepted this policy advice and recruited thousands of new CHWs using posters that highlighted the career path available. However, since rolling out the programme nationally, the Zambian government has not built a career ladder into this position and the recruitment process has offered false hope to those who were selected. While acknowledging the responsibility of the Zambian government, this paper analyses the role of the RCT in this outcome. Drawing on ethnographic research and interviews conducted between 2019 and 2020, the paper shows how the RCT was flawed. The economists who designed the RCT framed it as a study of "bureaucrats" and "civil servants" and therefore overlooked crucial academic and policy debates about the distinctive role of CHWs - including the well-documented reluctance of governments to offer them careers. By failing to consider the political context of the CHW programme, the economists who designed the RCT provided policy advice that "worked" for the Zambian government in the short-term but which has ultimately been harmful to CHWs. Drawing on this case study, the paper contributes to the growing critical scholarship on RCTs and raises questions about whether these studies objectively improve policymaking, as many of their proponents claim.