1AJAE ONLINE APPENDIX:
THE IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL RAINFALL INDEX INSURANCE:EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM ETHIOPIA

Shukri Ahmed
Craig McIntosh*Alexandros Sarris

October 2019

Abstract
We present the results of an experiment introducing commercial rainfall index insurance into droughtprone farming cooperatives in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. We provided a market-priced rainfall deficit
insurance product through producer cooperatives, and tested a number of potential ways to kick-start
private demand. Take-up of the insurance at market prices is very low, between 0.5% and 3% acrossseasons. When we use a randomized experiment to distribute small free insurance contracts to farmers,
39% of subsidized individuals enroll but this fails to stimulate input use, yields, or income, nor does itenhance demand in subsequent seasons. A training and promotion on the product improves uptake
and willingness to pay, but also does not improve farming outcomes. We conclude with a case studyof our efforts to interlink index insurance with credit for agricultural inputs.
Keywords: Ethiopian Agriculture, Index Insurance, Randomized Experiments
JEL Codes: O13, G22, C93

2Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures.
Appendix Table A1. EPIICA survey and activity timeline

3
Appendix Table A2. Correlation between EPIICA payouts and survey-measured agricultural shocks.

Shock according tosurvey-based measureof yields

Index insurance
would have madepayout

No

Yes

Total

No

62

9

71

Yes

17

10

27

Total

79

19

98

Shock is defined as the kebele/year deviation of the yield index from the kebele
mean being in the bottom 20% of the distribution. Both sales years pooled.

4
Table A3. Baseline Summary Statistics by Regopm.
Total

North
Shewa

West
Gojam

South
Wollo

North
Wollo

1150
100
5.3
4.5
49

388
100
5.5
4.7
51.2

363
100
5.8
4.8
46.1

260
100
4.6
3.9
48.9

139
100
4.99
4.23
50.53

Male
Female

90.7
9.3

90
10.1

93.7
6.3

89.2
10.8

87.77
12.23

No Education
Formal Education
Informal Education
Duration of hhld head’s formal education(years), excluding hh heads with no formal
education at all

51.4
21.5
27.1

43
22.2
34.8

62
17.1
20.9

46.3
26.6
27

56.82
21.97
21.21

4.8

5

4.5

5

4.14

8.2
35.3
56.5

11.6
34.3
54.1

3.6
32.8
63.6

11.2
38.6
50.2

5.04
38.85
56.12

Number of Households
Share of Households in the Zone (%)
Average Household Size
Number of adult equivalents
Average age of the head (years)
Sex of household head (%)

Type of hhld head ‘s education

Hhld head can read and write in local language
Read only
Read and Write
Cannot read or write
Source. EPIICA 2011 (R1) Baseline survey

5
Table A4. Summary statistics on agricultural activities and household incomes and consumption.
Round 1
(2011)

Round 3(2013)

Round 4(2014)

Average land owned per hhld (Ha)

1.47

1.24

1.18

Average land cultivated in the past 12 months (Ha)

1.63

1.17

1.1

Average number of parcels per hhld

3.68

3.51

3.49

Percent of area irrigated

0.12

0.14

0.11

Chemical Fertilizer

0.55

0.74

0.72

Organic Fertilizer

0.57

0.53

0.5

Chemicals (pesti/herbicide)

0.26

0.43

0.42

Improved seeds

0.36

0.41

0.37

Total income per eq. adult

3,169

4,186

4,526

Total cash income per eq. adult

2,254

3,340

3,682

Total noncash income per eq. adult

915

846

844

Total consumption per equivalent adult

2,591

2,663

2,463

Is current household income adequate to meet needs?
Not enough even for food
Just enough for food
Just enough for food and necessities
Enough to meet most of needs
Source. EPIICA R1, R3, R4 surveys

27.2
48.4
20
4.4

20.5
40.5
27.8
11.3

12.5
43.4
37
7.1

Farming

Share of Households Using

Household Income and Consumption

The years in parentheses refer to the year of realization of the data not the year of the survey

6
Table A5. Attrition and baseline outcomesHousehold in panel sample ofHousehold is in a village thatvillages but attrites by Roundwas dropped from the study
4
Outcome:Interlinked Village
Standalone Village(1)-0.0753(0.119)-0.121(0.118)Treated Village

(2)

(3)
0.00937(0.0590)0.00737(0.0602)-0.0970(0.100)0.701***(0.0786)0.701***(0.0786)

0.0903***(0.0238)

0.00966(0.0568)-0.0795(0.0563)-0.00194(0.0189)0.0903***(0.0238)

2,158
0.010

2,158
0.009

882
0.028

882
0.028

Household will receive voucher-0.0795(0.0551)

Household will receive training
Constant (mean attrition in omitted group)

Observations
R-squared(4)

Regressions run at the household level among all cooperative members, using full baseline samples and clustering
standard errors ayt the village level to account for the design effect. Outcome variables are dummies for attrition
from village-level study sample (lack of drought exposure or unre-insurable rainfall station), and attrition from thehousehold survey in panel villages, respectively. Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be
representative of cooperative members in study villages. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

7
Table A6. Balance test using average pre-treatment outcomes
Panel A: Household Characteristics

Village-level Treatment
Household will receive voucher
Household will receive training
Voucher * training
Constant

Observations
R-squared

Household Consumption Hired Farm
Size
Aggregate
Labor

MaritalAge of HH Male-headed
Status of HH
Headhouseholdhead

Literacy

Education-0.281(0.451)0.251(0.397)0.0689(0.363)0.130(0.454)5.381***(0.233)-0.186(0.403)0.196(0.333)0.197(0.317)0.0247(0.379)4.478***(0.202)-0.0606(0.110)0.130(0.105)0.140(0.166)-0.160(0.175)0.200**(0.0761)0.621(4.138)1.614(3.617)3.383(4.537)-3.237(4.502)47.07***(1.687)-0.103(0.0834)
0.0797(0.0844)0.0527(0.109)0.00637(0.105)0.900***(0.0201)

0.231(0.138)-0.172(0.144)-0.224(0.197)0.127(0.193)2.168***(0.0321)-0.175*(0.102)0.239**(0.116)0.0863(0.149)-0.125(0.169)0.408***(0.0450)-15.54***(3.520)18.95***(5.635)11.03*(6.039)-13.17*(6.959)-70.02***(2.964)-1.477(1.220)7.454**(3.642)4.140(3.162)0.816(4.127)2.667**(1.003)-290.3(428.4)438.4(332.0)320.3(683.6)-555.4(839.9)1,081***(363.9)-262.1(316.9)328.9(288.6)424.1(444.3)-580.6(477.2)
836.7***(251.6)

834
0.004

834
0.006

834
0.006

834
0.007

834
0.013

834
0.010

834
0.009

834
0.008

834
0.015

834
0.001

834
0.002

HouseholdProductive
Hired Labor Asset Index

Consumer
DurablesRegressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be representative of cooperative members in study villages. Regressions examine the balance of Round 1 (pre-treatment) covariates
and outcomes by the subsequent village-level treatment and individual-level voucher randomization.
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses, clustered at the village level toaccount for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

8Table A6 (continued)
Panel B: Primary Outcomes.

Village-level Treatment
Household will receive voucher
Household will receive training
Voucher * training
Constant

Observations
R-squared

Any
ChemicalFertilizer

KGs ofChemicalFertilizer

Number ofcrops using
ChemicalFertilizer

Uses any
Improved
Seeds

Uses any
Input Credit

Total Valueof Inputs
Used

Index of
HH Income
Agricultural
per Capita
YieldsArea
Cultivated

0.102(0.183)
0.0985(0.133)0.0592(0.119)-0.128(0.153)0.525***(0.132)-1.373(46.07)46.98(38.25)33.92(33.25)-49.36(42.73)92.53***(29.68)0.0298(0.432)0.510(0.365)0.420(0.314)-0.593(0.408)1.094***(0.298)0.00727(0.197)
0.0614(0.152)0.212(0.154)-0.230(0.189)0.433***(0.135)-0.128(0.0958)
0.170*(0.0931)0.190(0.151)-0.312*(0.165)0.217***(0.0536)-7.404(53.61)
11.97(38.93)70.76(52.09)-12.06(66.48)146.2***(30.70)-0.213(0.142)0.165(0.108)0.154(0.127)-0.194(0.157)0.0736(0.0748)-0.132(77.63)25.64(84.06)30.03(96.36)158.1(226.4)163.7***(26.84)-0.130(0.216)1.986(1.850)0.530**(0.205)-1.278(0.990)1.241***(0.142)

834
0.022

825
0.017

834
0.024

834
0.007

824
0.021

824
0.003

808
0.006

832
0.002

834
0.004

Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be representative of cooperative members in study villages. Regressions examine the balance of Round 1(pre-treatment) covariates and outcomes by the subsequent village-level treatment and individual-level voucher randomization.
Robust standard errors arereported in parentheses, clustered at the village level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

9Table A7. Impact of the Sum Insured.
Panel A: LATE of Sum Insured on Primary Outcomes: Instrumenting for Sum Insured with Voucher Amount
Number ofFirst stageAny
KGs ofTotal Value
Index of
Uses any
HH Incomecrops using
Uses any(Sum
ChemicalChemicalof Inputs Agricultural
Improved
per Capita
Chemical
Input Credit
Insured)Fertilizer
Fertilizer
Used
Yields
Seeds
Fertilizer
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Sum Insured (instrumented w voucher amt)
4.57e-05-0.0955
0.000208
0.00121*-0.000161-0.144-0.000431-0.989**(0.000764)(0.134)(0.00193) (0.000690) (0.000807)(0.226)(0.000906)(0.465)R3
1.358
0.152*
13.10**
0.357**
0.09290.0126-17.53-0.0818101.0**(2.402)(0.0807)(5.648)(0.151)(0.0567)(0.0293)(24.47)(0.131)(41.23)R4-1.4040.107
14.50***
0.257*
0.0436-0.100***-9.9420.0179115.2***(2.483)(0.0736)(4.924)(0.137)(0.0621)(0.0338)(33.36)(0.137)(43.06)
Panel village treatment dummy-0.951-0.0178
2.426-0.0939-0.167**
0.0951**-10.15-0.00951-127.7**(4.018)(0.0889)(7.844)(0.167)(0.0716)(0.0384)(42.57)(0.145)(64.80)
Voucher amount (randomized)
2.403***(0.619)Constant
0.02130.669***
34.32***
0.610***
0.04970.162***
88.48***-0.157*47.60*(2.283)(0.0500)(2.879)(0.0942)(0.0382)(0.0186)(18.70)(0.0850)(27.03)Observations
2,571
2,544
2,428
2,571
2,544
2,541
2,541
2,367
2,561
Number of households
882
881
876
882
881
881
881
871
881
Baseline mean
0.631
114
1.370
0.470
0.185
172.8
0.00962265.3
Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be representative of cooperative members in study villages. The first column provides the first stage estimate ofvoucher amounts on sum insured, and the remaining columns examine the impact of the sum insured, instrumenting for this with the randomized voucher amount. Data
includes one pre-treatment rounds and two post-treatment observations. Voucher treatment re-randomized at the individual level in rounds 3 and 4. Robust standard
errors are reported in parentheses, clustered at the village level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

10Table A7 Continued.
Panel B: Impact of the Largest Voucher Amounts.

Large Voucher (>$20)
Small Voucher (0<voucher<$20)
Panel village treatment dummy
R3
R4
Constant

Observations
R-squared
Number of households
F-test that Large = Small
p-value on F-test that Large = Small

Any
ChemicalFertilizer

KGs ofChemicalFertilizer(2)-0.00559(0.0510)0.0565(0.0410)-0.0436(0.0922)0.149*(0.0809)
0.112(0.0743)0.640***(0.0271)(3)-8.606(6.351)-1.925(6.949)2.661(7.802)
17.11***(4.470)17.00***(5.240)112.7***(1.435)

Number ofcrops using
ChemicalFertilizer(4)-0.102(0.106)-0.0313(0.0989)-0.0297(0.172)0.353**(0.149)0.234*(0.135)1.383***(0.0476)

2,544
0.045
881
2.916
0.0942

3,280
0.022
880
1.627
0.208

2,571
0.038
882
0.547
0.463

Uses any
Improved
Seeds

Uses any
Input Credit

Total Value
Index of
HH Incomeof Inputs Agricultural
per Capita
Used
Yields(5)0.0758(0.0536)0.0793*(0.0400)-0.185**(0.0745)0.0884(0.0569)
0.0361(0.0624)0.475***(0.0196)(6)-0.0223(0.0472)
0.0447(0.0446)
0.0659(0.0409)
0.0324(0.0236)-0.0825***(0.0270)
0.177***(0.00739)(7)-5.166(17.74)-20.53(27.20)-6.778(28.01)
6.078(16.87)15.73(24.91)150.6***(6.210)(8)0.00353(0.0758)-0.0363(0.0388)-0.0710(0.108)0.00387(0.0902)
0.113(0.0984)-0.0304*(0.0161)(9)
24.89(34.58)116.5(95.19)-216.9*(110.0)98.38**(45.32)134.3***(46.80)266.0***(28.10)

2,544
0.023
881
0.00608
0.938

3,416
0.024
882
4.862
0.0323

3,416
0.001
882
0.287
0.595

3,191
0.010
875
0.431
0.515

2,561
0.005
881
1.616
0.210

Regressions are household fixed-effects analysis among all cooperative members. Data includes two pre-treatment rounds for some variables and one for others; allvariables have two post-treatment observations. Voucher treatment re-randomized at the individual level in rounds 3 and 4. Robust standard errors are reported inparentheses, clustered at the village level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

11
Table A8. Heterogeneous Impacts of Vouchers by Baseline Credit Rationing Status

Any Voucher * Risk Constrained
Any Voucher * Price Constrained
Any Voucher * Quantity Constrained
Risk ConstrainedPrice Constrained
Quantity Constrained
Treated Village
Round 3Round 4
Constant

Observations
R-Squared
Baseline Control Mean

Uses any
Improved
Seeds

Uses any
Input Credit

Total Value Index of
HH Incomeof Inputs Agricultural
per Capita
YieldsUsed(4)-18.77(16.40)-2.202(12.75)-18.18(20.67)-17.23(16.40)-42.24***(13.84)-46.74*(26.19)-14.12(16.46)-0.0968(25.33)1.441(28.85)45.97(36.49)122.5***(18.54)(6)-0.00805(0.0555)
0.00464(0.0654)0.0338(0.116)-0.0462(0.0649)-0.0997(0.0683)-0.220***(0.0770)-0.0189(0.0593)0.0654(0.0710)0.00288(0.0827)-0.0711(0.112)0.504***(0.0708)(7)0.0185(0.0481)0.0412(0.0559)-0.0559(0.0864)-0.0381(0.0533)-0.0197(0.0268)-0.0101(0.0424)0.000720(0.0248)0.0479(0.0385)-0.0608*(0.0360)
0.0451(0.0506)
0.180***(0.0229)(8)-13.72(20.48)0.0600(22.15)-3.280(26.82)-35.85(25.35)-53.01**(19.86)-73.09***(24.63)-24.80(25.86)-20.91(28.05)-14.23(35.36)41.29(37.04)167.6***(22.05)(9)-0.0483(0.0569)
0.103(0.0831)-0.0855(0.0854)-0.00428(0.0610)-0.0862(0.0574)-0.0575(0.0809)-0.0776(0.0470)0.0296(0.103)0.131(0.113)-0.0815(0.119)0.00163(0.0514)(10)-16.61(37.22)-44.04(56.30)68.95(56.43)45.14(37.13)-124.5(102.4)-111.1(87.85)-231.8**(114.1)
3.242(112.6)31.01(102.5)-20.84(102.8)343.9**(139.0)

3,280
0.033
114

2,571
0.044
1.370

2,544
0.019
0.470

3,416
0.015
0.185

3,416
0.007
172.8

3,191
0.013
0.00962

2,561
0.004
265.3

Any
ChemicalFertilizer

KGs ofChemicalFertilizer(1)0.340***(0.0491)
0.0822(0.0710)-0.0233(0.0758)
0.0309(0.0442)
6.59e-06(0.000237)
1.32e-05(0.000469)-4.34e-06(0.000156)-0.000495(0.0177)0.000506(0.0181)-0.000193(0.00690)-8.88e-07(3.22e-05)(2)38.97***(7.994)-5.557(9.107)-14.89(9.623)-7.015(7.919)-0.0517(0.0959)-0.103(0.185)0.0341(0.0928)
3.883(2.870)-3.971(2.934)1.510(1.244)0.00696(0.0354)(3)-0.00520(0.0389)-0.0205(0.0579)
0.0398(0.126)-0.0396(0.0445)-0.0924*(0.0505)-0.155*(0.0839)-0.0357(0.0493)0.0646(0.0880)0.0175(0.0919)0.126(0.108)0.664***(0.0624)

3,446
0.296
0

3,446
0.177
0

2,544
0.038
0.631

Interacted Specification.
Any Voucher

Number ofcrops using
ChemicalFertilizer(5)-0.0222(0.117)-0.0470(0.153)0.0561(0.306)-0.263*(0.144)-0.406**(0.160)-0.578**(0.230)-0.286*(0.153)0.0926(0.243)-0.0143(0.252)0.351(0.306)1.535***(0.202)

Covered by
Sum Insured
Insurance

Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be representative of cooperative members in study villages. Data includes two pre-treatment rounds for some variables andone for others; all variables have two post-treatment observations. Voucher treatment re-randomized at the individual level in rounds 3 and 4. Robust standard errors arereported in parentheses, clustered at the village level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table A9. Heterogeneity in Impacts for Non-Cooperative Members.

12

Any Voucher * Non Coop Member
Any Voucher
Not Coop Member
Treated Village
R3
R4
Constant

Observations
R-squared
Baseline Control mean

(4)
-1.637(12.46)-8.117(10.78)-58.30***(12.51)
11.97(27.98)20.79(19.49)19.38(19.21)108.8***(16.81)

Number ofcrops using
ChemicalFertilizer(5)0.0627(0.193)-0.218*(0.115)-0.458***(0.119)0.393(0.278)0.293(0.206)0.170(0.225)1.272***(0.171)(6)0.0146(0.0804)-0.0440(0.0545)-0.175***(0.0495)-0.0909(0.105)0.130*(0.0752)
0.133*(0.0773)
0.426***(0.0627)(7)-0.0541(0.0500)-0.0137(0.0653)-0.00224(0.0338)
0.0721(0.0907)0.0405(0.0460)-0.0290(0.0544)0.167***(0.0199)

3,621
0.077
114

2,853
0.064
1.370

2,822
0.040
0.470

3,788
0.009
0.185

Sum Insured

Any Chemical
Fertilizer

KGs ofChemicalFertilizer(1)
0.00929(0.0792)
0.362***(0.0482)
7.48e-05(0.000324)-0.00136(0.00548)-0.00545(0.0220)0.00522(0.0211)-4.44e-05(0.000193)(2)-0.0903(9.503)38.05***(6.548)0.00914(0.0433)-0.166(0.745)-0.666(3.010)0.639(2.887)-0.00543(0.0258)(3)0.000307(0.0746)-0.0643(0.0521)-0.137**(0.0521)0.0736(0.113)0.238**(0.0943)0.180*(0.0985)0.564***(0.0632)

3,822
0.304
0

3,822
0.183
0

2,822
0.076
0.631

BoughtInsurance

Uses any
Improved
Seeds

Index of
Agricultural
Yields

HH Incomeper Capita

(8)
8.247
(12.94)-20.24(13.10)-66.57***(15.40)29.94(25.00)-6.654(20.87)-5.854(24.03)147.3***(17.01)(9)0.00390(0.0914)-0.0575(0.0648)-0.0376(0.0526)-0.0353(0.113)0.0214(0.107)0.0740(0.101)-0.0286(0.0401)

(10)
53.07
(100.5)17.10(45.39)-2.593(87.24)-172.2(104.9)186.3**(85.49)188.8**(93.52)218.0***(78.99)

3,788
0.021
172.8

3,524
0.004
0.00962

2,841
0.005
265.3

Uses any Input Total Value ofCreditInputs Used

Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be representative of cooperative members in study villages. The first two columns estimate the effect of the intervention on uptake (acceptanceof the free insurance voucher). Remaining columns examine impacts on agricultural and household outcomes. Data includes two pre-treatment rounds for some variables and one for others; allvariables have two post-treatment observations. Voucher treatment re-randomized at the individual level in rounds 3 and 4. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses, clustered at thevillage level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

13
Table A10. Heterogeneity in Impacts by PSNP Eligibility Status.
Panel A. The Impact of PSNP Eligibility on Insurance Demand.
Outcome: Was Insured(1)(2)
VARIABLES
Took up Insurance Voucher
PSNP at baseline

0.0472(0.0671)

PSNP in village at baseline
Voucher amount
Constant

Observations
R-squared

0.00470(0.00326)
0.280***(0.0615)

0.0661(0.0872)
0.00473(0.00325)
0.267***(0.0683)

871
0.006

871
0.008

Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be
representative of cooperative members in study villages. Robust
standard errors are reported in parentheses, clustered at the village
level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

14Table A10 Continued. Heterogeneity in Impacts by PSNP Eligibility Status.
Panel B. Differential Impacts of Insurance by PSNP Status.

Any Voucher
Any Voucher * PSNP at baseline
PSNP at baseline
R3
R4
t_panelConstant

Observations
R-squared
Baseline mean

BoughtInsurance

Sum Insured(1)0.395***(0.0409)-0.0204(0.0621)-0.000361(0.000430)-0.0232(0.0186)
0.0240(0.0193)-0.00934(0.00773)
4.78e-05(5.62e-05)(2)38.50***(5.977)-8.444(8.120)0.00179(0.0446)0.115(2.855)-0.119(2.954)0.0463(1.149)-0.000237(0.00591)

3,446
0.318
0

3,446
0.189
0

Number
Total
HH
Index ofAny
KGs ofof crops Uses any Uses any
Value of
Agricultur Income
Improved
Input
Chemical Chemical
using
Inputs
al Yields per Capita
Seeds
CreditFertilizer Fertilizer Chemical
Used
Fertilizer
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
-0.0161-18.25-0.0628 -0.0102 0.00680-13.40-0.0318-20.68(0.0378) (11.73)(0.107) (0.0451) (0.0328) (13.31) (0.0506) (25.01)
0.244**-8.0690.333-0.0346 -0.0869** -12.54-0.0211-22.28(0.111)(14.93)(0.254) (0.0877) (0.0344) (16.41) (0.0791) (48.99)-0.365*** -97.50*** -1.001*** -0.241*** -0.116*** -102.6*** -0.171*** -37.93(0.0735) (15.56)(0.205) (0.0793) (0.0268) (15.15) (0.0454) (62.05)
0.177***
5.174
0.337
0.0506
0.0584-10.51-0.0379
19.66(0.0648) (19.00)(0.211) (0.0568) (0.0374) (19.94) (0.0790) (80.10)
0.124*
6.902
0.203
0.0300-0.0178-5.5550.091440.84(0.0640) (20.88)(0.213) (0.0615) (0.0352) (22.84) (0.0816) (74.31)
0.052534.80
0.185-0.03130.029331.17-0.0550-15.02(0.0686) (28.88)(0.270) (0.0914) (0.0493) (26.89) (0.0951) (79.70)
0.595*** 101.5*** 1.314*** 0.400*** 0.167*** 140.5*** -0.0169 252.7***(0.0545) (14.79)(0.173) (0.0543) (0.0195) (16.09) (0.0346) (72.20)
2,544
0.099
0.546

3,280
0.083
91.11

2,571
0.076
1.180

2,544
0.030
0.368

3,416
0.024
0.153

3,416
0.016
147.6

3,191
0.019
0.00389

2,561
0.000
247.6

Regressions present pooled OLS analysis, weighted to be representative of cooperative members in study villages. The first two columns estimate the effect of theintervention on uptake (acceptance of the free insurance voucher). Remaining columns examine impacts on agricultural and household outcomes. Data includes
two pre-treatment rounds for some variables and one for others; all variables have two post-treatment observations. Voucher treatment re-randomized at theindividual level in rounds 3 and 4. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses, clustered at the village level to account for the design effect. *** p<0.01,** p<0.05, * p<0.1

15
Table A11. Descriptive Statistics from Feres Wega where the Interlinked Loans were Marketed.
Reported Changes in Input Use:

Input:

Local Seeds
Improved Seeds
Organic Fertilizer
UREA
DAP
Insecticides/Herbicides
Veterinary Services
Other Livestock Inputs

NumberNumberIncreasing % Increasing Decreasing

20
28
28
72
70
17
7
4

18.5%
25.9%
25.9%
66.7%
64.8%
15.7%
6.5%
3.7%

3
5
5
9
9
2
0
1

%
Number with
Decreasing No Change

2.8%
4.6%
4.6%
8.3%
8.3%
1.9%
0.0%
0.9%

85
75
75
27
29
89
101
103

Data come from the Round 5 survey conducted only in the village of Feres Wega where interlinked
insurance was successfully sold.

16
Appendix Figure A1. CDFs of Survey-Measured Yields, by Insurance Payout Status.

How Yields vary with Insurance Payouts
Prior Year

Year Index Triggers

p-value on KS test: .131-.50

Yield Index.5

p-value on KS test: .0001

No_Payouts-.50

Yield Index

Payouts

.5

1

17

Appendix Figure A2A. Map of Rainfall Stations and the Study Area.

18
Figure A2B. Map of study woredas (drawn in lines) and rainfall stations (along with their 20 km perimeter).

Source. Ethiopian statistical agency and NMA.

Note. The red dots represent study village locations, and the the light blue circles are centered around the rainfall stations. The black lines
represent geographical boundaries of woredas (larger administrative regions each including several villages or kebeles)

19
Figure A3. Average Sum Insured by Randomized Voucher Amount.

0

Average Sum Insured
20
40
60

80

Voucher Experiment & Average Sum Insured

0

10

20
Randomized Voucher Amount

Average sum insured

30

40

Fitted Values

All values in 2010 US$. Size of dots proportional to number of observations at each assigned value.