nificantly different from zero) whereas the impact of poverty-based scholarships on high-merit high-poverty students is 0.056 (not statistically significantly different from zero). The difference between these coefficients is 0.155 for cognitive skills, 0.144 for well-being, and 0.158 for reservation wage. By contrast, the impacts on education participation and socio-emotional outcomes are more similar (the differences are - 0.069 and 0.095, respectively).

We interpret these results as suggesting that the labeling effect that was apparent earlier three-year follow-up study remains and is apparent in dimensions before (well-being and reservation wage). However, we recognize in the estimates makes it hard to be confident about this finding—the only difference in coefficient estimates that is statistically significantly different from is that for reservation wage (p-value of 0.018).<sup>27</sup> second dimension of heterogeneity we investigate is that by gender. In we present results from regressions of the dependent variables on a indicator, a gender indicator (female = 1, and zero otherwise), and their interaction. table also assesses whether the size of the impact is different across types for boys (as indicated by a Chi-square test and its corresponding p-value in the two rows of the table). The results are mixed, and should be interpreted caution since, as in the discussion of Table 8, some of the point estimates suffer from standard errors. We do not find gender-differential impacts on a beneficiary’s attainment, socioemotional outcomes, or well-being (whether within the two programs and samples). In contrast, there are large differences in effect of poverty-based transfers on cognitive skills. While the impact on boys is positive (with an effect-size of 0.168), the impact on girls is negative (with an effect-size -0.141=0.168-0.309)—with the difference being a statistically significantly from zero. Unlike in the average effect, the results reveal a positive impact poverty-based scholarships for male recipients. Finally, Column (5) suggests that the We interpret these results as suggesting that the labeling effect that was apparent in the earlier three-year follow-up study remains and is apparent in dimensions not documented before (well-being and reservation wage). However, we recognize that imprecision in the estimates makes it hard to be confident about this finding—the only difference in coefficient estimates that is statistically significantly different from zero is that for reservation wage (p-value of 0.018).<sup>27</sup> The second dimension of heterogeneity we investigate is that by gender. In Table 9, we present results from regressions of the dependent variables on a treatment indicator, a gender indicator (female = 1, and zero otherwise), and their interaction. The table also assesses whether the size of the impact is different across targeting types for boys (as indicated by a Chi-square test and its corresponding p-value in the last two rows of the table). The results are mixed, and should be interpreted with caution since, as in the discussion of Table 8, some of the point estimates suffer from large standard errors. We do not find gender-differential impacts on a beneficiary’s educational attainment, socioemotional outcomes, or well-being (whether within or across the two programs and samples). In contrast, there are large differences in the effect of poverty-based transfers on cognitive skills. While the impact on boys is positive (with an effect-size of 0.168), the impact on girls is negative (with an effect-size of -0.141=0.168-0.309)—with the difference being a statistically significantly different from zero. Unlike in the average effect, the results reveal a positive impact of poverty-based scholarships for male recipients. Finally, Column (5) suggests that the estimated impact on a recipient’s daily reservation wage comes from the impact for

> 27It is notable that the impacts of the merit-based scholarships on cognitive skills and reservation wage appear to be largely driven by poor individuals (as indicated by the size of the coefficient for the interaction term).

26