The top panel of Table 2 displays the proportion of the population in different quantiles of the true per capita consumption quantiles (columns) deemed eligible for Samurdhi benefits by Model 1. The PMT cutoff scores (rows) are set at the 20<sup>th</sup> , 30<sup>th</sup> and 40<sup>th</sup> percentiles of the true per capita consumption distribution, implying that around 20, 30, and 40 percent of the population with scores below the respective cutoffs would be eligible for benefits.<sup>12</sup> As is evident from the table, the share of households eligible for benefits increases monotonically as the cutoff rises. According to the HIES, 40.2 and 37.1 percent of population in the bottom decile and quintile, respectively, were beneficiaries of Samurdhi in 2016. By applying a PMT with the weights estimated in Model 1, around 75 percent of the bottom decile, and 65 percent of the bottom quintile, would be eligible if the PMT cutoff score were established at the 30<sup>th</sup> percentile of the true consumption distribution. This rule would select around 24 percent of the population overall.

Table 2. Comparative Targeting Performance of Model 1

|Quantiles of the true consumption distribution=>|Bottom<br>Decile|Bottom<br>Quintile|Top Quintile|Top<br>Decile|All|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Eligible share_||||||
|Existing Samurdhi beneficiaries<br>PMT cutoff score*|40.2|37.1|3.8|2.2|18.8|
|Score: 856 (10th percentile)|17.5|12.0|0.0|0.0|2.9|
|Score: 868 (15th percentile)|34.3|25.0|0.1|0.0|6.8|
|Score: 878 (20th percentile)|49.3|39.1|0.3|0.1|11.9|
|Score: 887 (25th percentile)|64.3|53.6|0.5|0.3|17.5|
|Score: 895 (30th percentile)|75.8|65.5|0.9|0.5|23.7|
|Score: 902 (35th percentile)|84.7|75.6|1.9|1.1|30.2|
|Score: 909 (40th percentile)|90.0|83.0|3.0|1.8|36.6|
|_Distribution of beneficiaries_||||||
|Existing Samurdhi beneficiaries|21.4|39.5|4.1|1.2|100|
|PMT cutoff score*||||||
|Score: 856 (10th percentile)|59.9|82.1|0.0|0.0|100|
|Score: 868 (15th percentile)|50.5|73.8|0.1|0.0|100|
|Score: 878 (20th percentile)|41.6|66.0|0.6|0.1|100|
|Score: 887 (25th percentile)|36.7|61.1|0.6|0.2|100|
|Score: 895 (30th percentile)|32.0|55.2|0.8|0.2|100|
|Score: 902 (35th percentile)|28.1|50.1|1.2|0.4|100|
|Score: 909 (40th percentile)|24.6|45.4|1.7|0.5|100|

Notes: Similar PMT eligible share and distribution of beneficiaries statistics for Models 2 and 3 can be found in Appendix table A2. * The PMT score cutoffs represent different percentiles of the true per capita consumption distribution. For example, the score 878 is derived by multiplying the 20<sup>th</sup> percentile of the log of the true consumption distribution by 100.

The bottom panel of Table 2 shows the distribution of beneficiaries by top and bottom consumption deciles and quintiles for various cutoff scores under Model 1. We find that at all cutoffs, more of the program benefits would accrue to the poor than at present. If Samurdhi was targeted based on a PMT, more than 50 percent of program beneficiaries would come from the poorest quintile at the 20 and 30 percent cutoffs, compared to 39.5 percent based on the program’s current beneficiary population. In addition, a much smaller share of the program would go to the top quintile or decile if beneficiaries were selected by PMT than the current methodology. The targeting performance is considerably better than the existing

> 12 Scores set at the 20th ,30th and 40th percentiles are 852, 868 and 882 respectively.

10