– Table A.8 Treatment effects, accounting for attrition (living standards, shocks, and migration)

||||KL bounds|+/- .25 SD|Behag|hel et al. bo|unds|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)<br>Main<br>specifcation|(2)<br>IPW|(3)<br>Lower<br>bound|(4)<br>Upper<br>bound|(5)<br>Using<br>relative date|(6)<br>Using inten|(7)<br>sive tracking|
||||||Exact|Lower|Upper|
||||||trimming|bound|bound|
|**Household living standards**||||||||
|Total consumption per capita|0.634**|0.627**|0.355|0.906***|0.684**|0.477*|0.820***|
||(0.267)|(0.269)|(0.246)|(0.246)|(0.272)|(0.266)|(0.272)|
|Food consumption per capita|0.384***|0.395***|0.249**|0.509***|0.408***|0.319***|0.453***|
||(0.116)|(0.118)|(0.107)|(0.107)|(0.118)|(0.116)|(0.118)|
|Non-food consumption per capita|0.077|0.080|-0.042|0.188*|0.120|0.028|0.189|
||(0.120)|(0.122)|(0.111)|(0.111)|(0.122)|(0.120)|(0.122)|
|Asset index (stock)|0.127***|0.126***|0.079**|0.168***|0.132***|0.072**|0.150***|
||(0.038)|(0.038)|(0.035)|(0.035)|(0.038)|(0.036)|(0.038)|
|Asset index (bought since 2019)|0.008|0.009|-0.035|0.046|0.019|-0.066*|0.024|
||(0.042)|(0.042)|(0.038)|(0.038)|(0.041)|(0.035)|(0.041)|
|**Shocks and coping mechanisms**||||||||
|Economic shock|0.025***|0.024***|0.018***|0.031***|0.027***|0.007|0.027***|
||(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.008)|(0.006)|(0.008)|
|Other shock|-0.002|-0.002|-0.021|0.015|0.002|-0.013|0.006|
||(0.019)|(0.019)|(0.017)|(0.017)|(0.019)|(0.019)|(0.019)|
|Extreme coping strategy|-0.028**|-0.029**|-0.042***|-0.017|-0.030**|-0.047***|-0.029**|
||(0.013)|(0.013)|(0.012)|(0.012)|(0.013)|(0.012)|(0.013)|
|Other coping strategy|0.009|0.008|-0.007|0.023|0.011|-0.005|0.014|
||(0.015)|(0.016)|(0.014)|(0.014)|(0.016)|(0.015)|(0.016)|
|**Migration**||||||||
|Individual migration (since 2019)|0.002|0.001|-0.014|0.018|-0.001|-0.018|0.001|
||(0.018)|(0.018)|(0.017)|(0.017)|(0.018)|(0.018)|(0.019)|
|Expected likelihood of future migration|0.032***|0.030***|0.022**|0.043***|0.033***|0.018*|0.035***|
||(0.011)|(0.011)|(0.010)|(0.010)|(0.011)|(0.010)|(0.011)|
|**Observations**|1824|1,824|2,000|2,000|1,776|1,776|1,776|

Notes: This table reports the results from three methods to test the sensitivity of our results to attrition. Column 1 reports the estimates from Table 3 for reference. Column 2 reports the results weighting the households by their inverse probability of responding to the survey (Inverse Probability Weighting or IPW). Columns 3 and 4 replace outcome values for the attrited households with semi-extreme values as in Kling and Liebman (2004). Missing treatment and control observations are set to have a 0.5 SD difference in their outcomes: that is we impute mean + 0.25 SD for missing treatment and mean – 0.25 SD for missing controls, and vice versa (KL bounds). Columns 5-7 use the approach proposed by Behaghel et al. (2015) to identify the observations that should be trimmed in the treatment group to fully close the attrition differential. In Column 5, we exploit the fact that respondents that are hard to track are typically interviewed much later than other respondents in the same village, and we trim the 48 observations in the treatment group with the latest interview dates relative to the median interview date in their village. Columns 6 and 7 report the results excluding the 30 interviews in the treatment group that were done during the intensive tracking. For the remaining 18 additional observations in the treatment group, we use standard Lee bounds. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. *** p _<_ 0.01, ** p _<_ 0.05, * p _<_ 0.1.

50