# _Impact heterogeneity and stated demand_

We now turn to studying whether targeting these interventions on observed baseline characteristics would have resulted in higher returns. First, to analyze potential returns to targeting on demand, we use a set of questions from the baseline survey asking households to state their demands for different types of programs. Households were asked in an open question which type of intervention they would prefer in order to increase their incomes. In this open question, none of the households asked for training. About 30% expressed spontaneous demand for credit, indicating a potential liquidity constraint limiting productive investments which the grant could address (Table 2). The majority of households (55%) expressed spontaneous demand for temporary unskilled employment in public works, such as cash-forwork programs. This likely reflects more severe cash constraints, suggesting need for cash for daily expenditures, rather than productive investments. In a following question, households were asked specifically for their interest in training. They were also asked to indicate their preference between the income generating intervention they had stated first (in the open question), and the training option they had mentioned when probed. Almost half of households stated they were indifferent between both options, while 38% preferred training. Among those, only 13% preferred non-agricultural training. Overall, these patterns seem to indicate weak demand for liquidity for investment in business development and for training in skills for nonagricultural employment. Table 2 further shows that stated demand differs significantly between the poor and the non-poor, with the poor less likely to ask for credit or agricultural training, and more likely to ask for cash-for-work programs or to be indifferent.

We use this stated demand to analyze whether returns to grants or training are higher for households with preferences for those interventions. In particular, since spontaneous demand for credit suggests households perceive cash constraints for productive investments, we analyze whether the returns to the cash grants are higher for households stating such demand. We also show heterogeneity by demand for the cash-for-work program. Similarly, we analyze whether returns to vocational training are higher for those expressing preference for non-agricultural training, or more broadly for any type of training. Table 3 shows that impacts for households with baseline demands consistent with either the business grant or the training are not higher than those for other households. If anything, many of the interaction effects are negative (though mostly not significant). Households with stated demand for credit are neither more likely to participate in nonagricultural self-employment when they receive the cash grant, nor do they have higher returns in such activities. And households who stated preferences for non-agricultural training and subsequently were randomly selected to receive nonagricultural training are not more likely to increase participation in nonagricultural wage or self-employment, nor do they get higher incomes from such activities. Overall these results do not support targeting on stated baseline demand.

13