|Daily res. wage<br>(inv.<br>hyperbolic sine,<br>USD)<br>(5)<br>0.173***<br>(0.065)<br>0.0350<br>(0.076)<br>-0.240**<br>(0.092)<br>805<br>0.110<br>3.960<br>Yes<br>2.260<br>0.0150<br>(0.062)<br>0.0740<br>(0.084)<br>0.0630<br>(0.110)<br>746<br>0.122<br>2.330<br>Yes<br>2.220<br>5.563<br>0.0180<br>e variable as in Table 6. Treatment<br> the merit-based scheme but would<br>eived a merit-based scholarship. All<br>) variables and 5 census village-level<br>o were eligible for the poverty schol-<br> corresponding p-value below) is the|
|---|
|T<br><br>Family index:<br>SES/Well-being<br>(4)<br>0.139<br>(0.084)<br>0.0420<br>(0.114)<br>0.0810<br>(0.120)<br>804<br>0.183<br>6.880<br>Yes<br>-0.280<br>-0.00500<br>(0.097)<br>0.0430<br>(0.136)<br>0.128<br>(0.165)<br>743<br>0.122<br>4.370<br>Yes<br>-0.310<br>0.0630<br>0.802<br> and 7. Column (4) is the sam<br>individuals who qualify under<br>heme but would not have rec<br>baseline, 6 school-level (EMIS<br> and Panel B respondents wh<br>* p<0.1. The Chi-square (and|
|F<br><br>Family index:<br>Socioemotional<br>(3)<br>0.0770<br>(0.099)<br>0.105<br>(0.126)<br>-0.175<br>(0.157)<br>807<br>0.104<br>3.530<br>Yes<br>0<br>-0.0180<br>(0.105)<br>0.0480<br>(0.146)<br>-0.211<br>(0.179)<br>749<br>0.110<br>2.830<br>Yes<br>-0.0200<br>0.0310<br>0.859<br>ily indices from Tables 3 to 5 <br>he median poverty score are <br>y under the poverty-based sc<br>ocio-economic variables from <br>p (Treatment=1, 0 otherwise)<br>vel). *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, <br>rom the poverty sample.|
|A<br><br>Family index:<br>Cognition<br>(2)<br>0.211**<br>(0.094)<br>0.0340<br>(0.118)<br>-0.214<br>(0.139)<br>813<br>0.228<br>8.120<br>Yes<br>0.0700<br>0.0560<br>(0.090)<br>-0.0720<br>(0.103)<br>-0.140<br>(0.131)<br>752<br>0.200<br>4.400<br>Yes<br>-0.0300<br>0.213<br>0.644<br>) to (3) and (5) are the fam<br>der either scheme. Below t<br>e are individuals who qualif<br>rty score, individual-level s<br>ible for the merit scholarshi<br>es (clustered at the school le<br>mple and interaction term f|
|DR<br><br>Family index:<br>Education<br>(1)<br>**Panel A. Merit**<br>Treatment<br>0.130<br>(0.094)<br>Below the median poverty score<br>0.0850<br>(0.111)<br>Below the median poverty score and treatment<br>0.00900<br>(0.128)<br>Observations<br>814<br>R-squared<br>0.168<br>F-statistic<br>5.200<br>Covariates<br>Yes<br>Control mean<br>-0.0200<br>**Panel B. Poverty**<br>Treatment<br>0.199*<br>(0.103)<br>Below the median test score<br>-0.285***<br>(0.093)<br>Below the median test score and treatment<br>0.159<br>(0.114)<br>Observations<br>753<br>R-squared<br>0.183<br>F-statistic<br>4.040<br>Covariates<br>Yes<br>Control mean<br>-0.160<br>**Joint test: Poverty vs. Merit**<br>Chi-square<br>1.070<br>p-value<br>0.301<br>Notes: Estimated treatment efects. The dependent variables in columns (1<br>captures efects for students who would have qualifed for a scholarship un<br>not have received a poverty-based scholarship. Below the median test scor<br>regressions control for district fxed efects, baseline test score, baseline pove<br>variables, measured at baseline. Panel A includes respondents who were elig<br>arship (Treatment=1, 0 otherwise). Robust standard errors are in parenthes<br>result of testing the equality between the interaction term from the merit sa<br>37|