# **Table 1: Balance of the female workers selected for the promotion program and the nominated runners-up**

||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)<br>|(7)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||N|**Nominated**<br>(Mean)|N|**Selected**<br>(Mean)|p-value|p-value<br>(RI)|Norm-<br>diff|
||**Pan**|**el A: Variables**|**from**|**baseline surve**|**y**|||
|Age|38|26_._18|160|25_._71|0_._45|0_._47|_−_0_._13|
|Married|38|0_._89|160|0_._83|0_._34|0_._41|_−_0_._18|
|Household members|38|3_._32|160|3_._26|0_._85|0_._91|_−_0_._03|
|Household head|38|0_._05|160|0_._14|0_._15|0_._29|0_._29|
|Migrant|38|0_._68|160|0_._66|0_._74|0_._82|_−_0_._06|
|Education years|38|8_._00|160|8_._41|0_._19|0_._16|0_._22|
|<br>Nr Children|35|1_._06|145|1_._03|0_._88|0_._87|_−_0_._03|
|Combined income of spouses|34|23408_._41|133|23686_._89|0_._83|0_._80|0_._04|
|Spousal education difference|34|0_._26|133|_−_0_._46|0_._22|0_._30|_−_0_._22|
|<br>Age gap of spouses|34|_−_4_._97|132|_−_4_._55|0_._43|0_._41|0_._15|
|Wife’s spousal income share|34|0_._45|133|0_._47|0_._41|0_._36|0_._18|
|Decision-making|38|_−_0_._13|160|_−_0_._18|0_._79|0_._77|_−_0_._05|
|Supportive family|38|0_._09|160|0_._06|0_._89|0_._90|_−_0_._02|
|Experience in garment sector|38|6_._97|160|5_._91|0_._08*|0_._12|_−_0_._30|
|Exposure to female SV|38|0_._63|160|0_._54|0_._33|0_._31|_−_0_._18|
|<br>Internal locus of control|38|0_._20|160|0_._08|0_._50|0_._44|_−_0_._12|
|Grit|38|_−_0_._05|160|0_._13|0_._28|0_._21|0_._20|
|Self-effcacy|38|_−_0_._06|160|0_._06|0_._51|0_._51|0_._11|
|Emotional competence|38|0_._14|160|0_._11|0_._86|0_._86|_−_0_._03|
|<br>Multi-factor Leadership|38|0_._08|160|0_._08|0_._97|0_._97|_−_0_._01|
|Life satisfaction|38|7_._55|160|7_._60|0_._89|0_._92|0_._03|
|Self-assessment|38|0_._03|160|0_._14|0_._76|0_._70|0_._06|
|Ambition|38|2_._16|160|2_._20|0_._84|0_._86|0_._04|
|**Panel**|**B: Va**|**riables from d**|**iagnos**|**tic tests before**|**selection**|||
|Literacy score|38|0_._51|160|0_._58|0_._09*|0_._04**|0_._29|
|Numeracy score|38|0_._45|160|0_._47|0_._62|0_._60|0_._08|
|<br>Processing speed score|38|0_._34|160|0_._33|0_._75|0_._72|_−_0_._06|
|<br>Garment knowledge score|38|0_._56|160|0_._54|0_._28|0_._46|_−_0_._21|
|Family support score|38|0_._69|160|0_._72|0_._39|0_._32|0_._16|
|<br>Interest score|38|0_._72|160|0_._74|0_._62|0_._59|0_._09|
|Confdence score|38|0_._73|160|0_._73|0_._96|1_._00|_−_0_._01|
|<br>**Panel C**|**: Tim**|**e-invariant va**|**riables**|**from househ**|**old surveys**|||
|Muslim|38|0_._97|160|0_._97|0_._87|1_._00|_−_0_._03|
|Socioeconomic background|38|_−_0_._10|160|_−_0_._01|0_._65|0_._72|0_._09|
|<br>Marriage duration|36|8_._72|149|8_._13|0_._51|0_._64|_−_0_._13|
|<br>Brought assets in marriage|36|0_._31|149|0_._34|0_._73|0_._67|0_._06|

Notes: Selected is a dummy variable indicating whether the female sewing-line operator is quasi-randomly selected for the promotion program. Nominated is a dummy variable indicating whether the female sewing-line operator is an eligible, shortlisted runner-up that was quasi-randomly not selected for the promotion program, and represents the comparison group for the selected group. Column (5) shows the p-value of a conventional t-test of equality of the group means in columns (2) and (4). Column (6) shows the p-value of the t-test implemented using randomisation inference, with 5000 replications of treatment assignment that maintain the share of selected women within factory strata. Column (7) shows the normalised difference of the group means in columns (2) and (4), calculated as the difference in means between the two groups divided by the square root of the average of the sample variances of the two groups, following Imbens (2015). * p _<_ 0.1, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01 39