this conditionality actually leads to an increase in co-titling. Households might be indifferent to listing women as owners or might have all planned to co-title irrespective of any conditionality.

To investigate whether households respond to price incentives by co-titling, we rely on data from the household’s CRO application, where women from the household were identified and recorded. Define _cotitlei_ as a binary outcome equal to one if the household has included _any_ woman from the household on the CRO application, _conditional_ on the household having chosen to purchase a CRO. We then wish to re-estimate (5), using this variable as our outcome of interest: Ideally, equation (6) should be estimated over the full sample of households who have chosen to purchase a CRO. However, to date approximately 30% of households who have finished payment on a CRO have yet to finish filling out an application, thus our analysis of application decisions covers a smaller number of households.<sup>18</sup> Columns (3) and (4) of Table 5 show the results from estimating (6). The general voucher has no detectable effect on co-tilting, while the conditional voucher has a positive and highly significant impact. The magnitude of this effect is fairly large: each 10,000 TSh subsidy results in an increase in the predicted probability that a woman is included by 3.4 percentage points. When baseline controls are included, this point estimate increases slightly to 3.6.

An interesting and important feature of the results in Table 5 is the size of the constant term in columns (3) and (4). In the absence of any voucher discount, nearly 75% of buyers list a woman as co-owner on title application, although this high ‘control’ cotitling rate is in part a result of our linear specification.<sup>19</sup> This is compared to just 13% of households who report a woman as one of the owners of the parcel during the baseline survey. While not identified experimentally, this suggests a large, across the board increase in the demand for female co-titling as a result of the intervention. As noted above, the intervention was coordinated by a non-governmental organization strongly committed to promoting female empowerment, an organization founded and directed by a prominent female Tanzanian politician. The female ownership rights guaranteed under the 1999 Land Act are a core theme of the NGO’s public activities. Thus it is no surprise that female co-titling was high at all voucher values. While this is no threat to the experiment per se, in that all households received this marketing pitch in favor of female ownership, it may place an upper bound on the size of the impact of conditional vouchers that we

> 18While we will proceed as if the determinants of application choices being observable are random, it is possible that non-random selection of households choosing to fill out an application could lead to bias. Re-estimating (6) using a basic sample selection model does not change the main results here (tables available on request).

> 19Nonlinear specifications, such as including each voucher amount separately as an indicator variable, result in a ‘control’ co-titling rate closer to 60-64% This lower rate is observed in Figure 4

24