there is a second group of households that are particularly vulnerable, namely households that rely more heavily on female breadwinners.

To better understand the contours and sources of vulnerability of these groups of households, we study children and economically active adults in more detail in the following sections.

# **5.2 Economic activity among adults**

For adults, we find that their status of economic activity is strongly determined by their individual gender, and not by their displacement status ( **Table 4** ). Sequentially partialling out the influence of individual age, the gender of the household head, local fixed effects, household size, the total number of adults, and the total number of children, we find that women are consistently 19 to 20 percentage points less likely than men to be engaged in at least one (surveyed) economic activity.<sup>5</sup> Even when we control for an individual’s years of education, which is likely endogenous, the coefficient only changes slightly (to about .16) and remains highly statistically significant. Neither economic activity status nor the gender gap is meaningfully altered by differences in displacement status. Notably, this pattern of a strong and negative role of gender and a negligible role of IDP status holds for every category of surveyed economic activities separately ( **Table A2** ). We see the strongest gender gap in economic activity for paid labor, in which women are 25 percentage points less likely to be engaged than men.

To better understand the particular vulnerabilities of IDP households that primarily rely on female breadwinners, we focus on economically active women in **Table 5** . Testing for systematic differences due to displacement status, we find that economically active IDP women do not differ systematically from their non-IDP counterparts in terms of the number of activities, hours worked per week or months worked per year (columns 1-3). However, economically active IDP women are significantly more likely to primarily work in the agriculture sector (column 4), and their selfreported welfare is significantly lower than that of non-IDP women. Specifically, working IDP women are substantially more likely to be poor than working non-IDP women (column 5), and their subjective well-being is significantly lower in comparison (column 6).

These results suggest that economically active IDP women carry an additional burden based on their IDP status. IDP women do not work less than economically active non-IDP women, but their work is more confined to work in agriculture and tends to be less beneficial in terms of poverty status and personal well-being.

In terms of economic activity, IDP women thus not only face a disadvantage based on their gender at the extensive margin, but also a disadvantage based on their displacement status at the _intensive_ margin. It is worth noting that IDP households are _not_ more likely to rely primarily on female breadwinners than non-IDP households (see **Table 2** ). But when they do, these disadvantages compound to contribute to the increased extent of harmful food coping among IDP households that rely more on female breadwinners. These results emphasize the intersectionality here by

> 5 As noted above, the five measured categories are 1) paid labor for someone else; 2) unpaid labor in an offfarm family business; 3) non-agricultural self-employment; 4) agricultural self-employment; and 5) participation in unpaid training or workshops to foster skills.

12