An important element of the analysis is the potential bias introduced by the non-response rate in ENCEL 2017. It should be noted that with a twenty-year follow-up period, significant loss to follow-up is expected.

The sample does not consider those who emigrated to other countries, specifically the group reported to reside in the United States. We note that on average, Mexican migrants in the US have higher incomes compared to those who remain in Mexico (Yaschine, 2015; González de la Rocha, 2008).

# _A. Variables_

The unit of analysis used is the youth who resided in rural households in the evaluation during 1997-2000 and who were also ENCEL 2017 respondents. Among the youth in ENCEL 2017, we are particularly interested in the cases in which the interviewee was also the main household provider when the participant was 14 years old. This allows us to assess intergenerational mobility (Velez-Grajales, Huerta-Wong and Campos-Vázquez, 2015; Torche and Wormald, 2004). Overall, data on 4,578 pairs (youth and provider) is available, although due to missing values some estimations have fewer observations. From this group of pairs (youth and provider), we identified the household of origin to include household baseline characteristics in the analysis for the period 1997-2000.

As part of ENCEL 2017, anthropometric measurements were completed; specifically height and weight were measured for the interviewed youth and their providers. Furthermore, fluid intelligence (Raven matrices) and memory tests were performed. The instruments developed enabled us to collect information on household providers, both from the direct interview as well as from youth’s responses.

Table A.1 of Appendix A lists the main variables of interest for the analysis.

Based on factors such as growth, development and schooling as seen in section IV, individuals 15 years or older when their households began receiving PROSPERA’s transfers were already at a moment in their growth, development and education that limited the ability of the conditional cash transfers to influence the formation of their human capital. With respect to educational capital, this is supported by findings from a PROSPERA evaluation which demonstrated that the possibilities of re-incorporating those who have already dropped out of school are relatively lower at all ages (although they exist) and virtually nonexistent as of 14 years of age (Behrman, Sengupta and Todd, 2005).

Therefore, individuals 15 years and older serve as a potential comparison group because they share similar conditions and contexts as the other age groups in the same villages, but with very limited possibilities of additional human capital formation due to PROSPERA’s transfers. Thus, this group had limited program exposure because they were no longer in a critical period of human capital formation when their household was exposed to the program.

The analyses performed take advantage of the variation in exposure to the program. Considering the different age groups in ENCEL 2017, we can compare individuals who participated in the program at different critical periods of human capital development through the life course (i.e. early childhood, mid-childhood and early adolescence). In this manner, the oldest group (15 years or more) is used as a comparison group for the age groups that had greater exposure. The groups used for the analysis are defined as follows: 15