East of the country. Nigeria has endured high degrees of violence in many parts of the country for decades, particulalry around the Niger delta in the South, but the conflict associated with Boko Haram has been the most intensive internal conflict to date in terms of number of deaths and displacement and certainly the most relevant for the recent period of time we observe. This conflict started to gain force around 2010, reached its peak in violence between 2014 and 2015 and continues to these days with frequent episodes.

The household data we use is the General Household Survey (GHS) administered by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) of the Federal Government of Nigeria in collaboration with the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study.<sup>8</sup> Since 2010, this survey contains a panel component of 5,000 households administered during the post-planting and post-harvest seasons every other year. Each of these two components is a self-contained nationally and regionally representative survey and is administered in a different calendar year. This makes a total of six points in time with one point in time per calendar year between 2010 and 2016 (in 2015 the survey was not administered due to the degree of violence in the country). This is the period we consider, which fully captures the evolution of the Boko Haram conflict. We have four points in time before the peak in violence and two points in time after that.

The panel is a fixed (non-rotating) panel where missing households are traced to their new addresses and interviewed when possible. This reduced the attrition rate at the end of the six rounds to 8.3 percent of households. The survey records the reason why households do not respond, as summarized in Table 1 for the case of the last visit in 2016. A third of the attrition is due to the impossibility of interviewing households living in crisis areas. In particular, 14 enumeration areas could not be visited in Borno and Yobe States at the peak of the conflict in 2015, which is potentially problematic for our analysis. In this paper, we do not use panel models because one of our key variables (risk preferences) was only measured during the last round in 2016. However, attrition could potentially bias our 2016 sample with respect to key variables and controls. We test therefore for attrition before describing the rest of the data.

The original sample weights are adjusted by the national statiscal agency to account for attrition using household nonresponse rates by enumeration areas (we refer the reader to the Basic Information Document, p.21 and its Appendix 5 for further details, GHS, 2016). To test whether this correction restores the means of the original sample, we conducted means tests with the 2010 sample on all variables of interest between the full sample and the sample with attrition.<sup>9</sup> Table 2 describes all relevant variables we use in the paper and Table 3 reports results of the means tests. The test shows no significant differences across all variables of interest with the exception of household size and the marital status of the head of the household. Both variables are only used as controls in the analysis and the difference in means between the two samples is very small. We do not expect these

> 8All data and ancillary files can be found in the World Bank microdata library. For an example of the latest GHS survey see: http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/2734.

> 9All covariates used in the paper are described in Table 2.

11