the coefficients of the poverty dummy in columns (4) and (5) show that those poor households are less likely to take loans, and would take smaller loans if they take any, to cope.

Table 5: Gender Differences in General Coping Strategies - Poverty Channel

|||Househ|old Interna|l||External - Fa|mily/Network|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Reduce Meal<br>(0/1)|Sell Asset<br>(0/1)|ln<br>Asset|Loan<br>(0/1)|ln<br>Loan|Family<br>Transfer (0/1)|Gift/Assistance<br>(0/1)|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|
|Female Headed Household (0/1)|0.044<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.031<sup>_∗_</sup>|-0.140|-0.024|-0.072|0.034<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.011|
||(0.016)|(0.016)|(0.145)|(0.016)|(0.134)|(0.016)|(0.014)|
|Female Head (0/1)_×_Dirt Floor (0/1)|-0.064<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|-0.003|-0.006|-0.013|0.241|0.008|-0.006|
||(0.026)|(0.025)|(0.245)|(0.027)|(0.286)|(0.028)|(0.024)|
|Dirt Floor (0/1)|0.110<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.009|-0.144|-0.051<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|-0.348<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.038<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.038<sup>_∗_</sup>|
||(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.131)|(0.022)|(0.198)|(0.020)|(0.021)|
|Household Head Age|0.002<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.000|0.001|-0.002<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.009|0.002<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.001<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|
||(0.001)|(0.000)|(0.004)|(0.001)|(0.006)|(0.001)|(0.001)|
|ln Household Size|0.005|0.022|0.200|-0.009|0.182|-0.092<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.039<sup>_∗_</sup>|
||(0.028)|(0.015)|(0.124)|(0.020)|(0.171)|(0.020)|(0.022)|
|Child-adult Ratio|0.068<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.010|-0.214<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.010|-0.044|0.043<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.003|
||(0.019)|(0.015)|(0.083)|(0.014)|(0.110)|(0.012)|(0.013)|
|Urban (0/1)|-0.030<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|-0.004|-0.108|-0.014|0.138|-0.002|0.002|
||(0.014)|(0.011)|(0.105)|(0.015)|(0.131)|(0.013)|(0.010)|
|Network (0/1)|0.014|0.023|0.051|0.043<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.137|0.159<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.131<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
||(0.022)|(0.020)|(0.160)|(0.024)|(0.160)|(0.023)|(0.020)|
|County, Wave, Strata FE|✓|✓|✓|✓|✓|✓|✓|
|Observations<br>|30,967|30,978|2,521|30,978|4,666|30,934|30,968|
|_R_<sup>2</sup>|0.074|0.027|0.273|0.042|0.180|0.078|0.083|

This table shows OLS regression estimates using the first five waves from the Rapid Response Phone Survey data in Kenya. All regressions include the set of controls described in Table 1. Robust standard errors clustered within counties are reported in parentheses. *** p _<_ 0.01, ** p _<_ 0.05, * p _<_ 0.1.

Similarly, in Table 6 column (1), we also find that households with a female head or those which relied on family transfers prior to the COVID-19 crisis are more likely to reduce meals. However, those with a female head and relied on family transfers before are less likely to reduce meals. In columns (6)-(7), we observe that the magnitude of the positive correlation between the female head dummy and coping using family transfers or network assistance reduces after including the network dummy, compared to Table 1. This indicates that the prior receipt of family transfers is correlated with the female head dummy, i.e. households with a female head are more likely to receive family transfers prior to COVID-19. In addition, those households, which received transfers prior to the crisis, are more likely to cope using help from the social network, which further When both channel variables as well as the interaction terms are included in the same regression (Table 7), we still observe that being poor and reliant on social network 13