cut-offs. To test for HSAA-induced impacts on time allocation and education expenses, we use data from 1,226 generation III individuals from 6 to 18 years old in 557 generation II households (sample one). To examine school completion, information from 2,172 generation III individual 15 to 34 years old in 823 generation II households is used (sample two). Finally, to estimate the incidence of HSAA-induced health effects, measured as the need of treating diseases that could have been prevented with proper care, we use 1,399 generation III individuals 0 to 18 years old in 625 generation II households (sample three).

Results for time allocation in generation III are reported in table 2 with panels A and B referring to individuals in the 6 to 14 and 15 to 18 age groups,<sup>9</sup> and results from base and augmented specification in columns 1, 3, 5 and 7 and 2, 4, 6 and 8, respectively. We note that, compared to their male siblings and after including dummies for parents’ year of birth by gender, 6-14 year old girls in the reform state whose maternal grandfather is still alive or passed away after 1994 so that their mothers were affected by the HSAA spent some 7% more time on study (col. 5) than those in households where mothers had been unaffected by the HSAA. This suggests a strong second-generation effect of the reform that is robust to inclusion of other covariates and, with about 1.66 h/day of additional time spent studying (including school attendance), of non-negligible magnitude. It is almost entirely compensated for by an equivalent reduction of leisure (col. 7).<sup>10</sup> This suggests that the HSAA empowered mothers beyond the assets transferred to them, thereby helping to increase the amount of education consumed by girls vs, boys, in line with recent emphasis on the far-reaching impacts of female empowerment (Diebolt and Perrin 2013). By comparison, estimated first-generation effects are uniformly weak with the possible exception of girls who directly benefited from the reform spending more on leisure.

For the 15-18 year age group in panel B of table 2, estimated direct and indirect impacts go in opposite directions. Compared to male siblings, the HSAA is estimated to have led adolescent females to increase the amount of time spent on productive work by more than 30%, mainly by reducing time spent on schooling and household chores.<sup>11</sup> Though low historically (Fulford 2014), returns to female secondary education in India seem to have increased recently (Jensen 2012) but girls’ awareness of these may still not widespread enough to have affected decisions (Chari and Maertens 2014; Jensen 2010). Interestingly, the HSAA is estimated to have had a strong and significant second-generation effect in the opposite direction, possibly because mothers are cognizant of non-monetary (empowerment) benefits from higher levels of secondary education. In households where the mother had benefited from the HSAA, females spent some 34% more on study (col. 7) and 12% less on household chores (col. 4) than male siblings if

> 9 We focus on two age ranges ass young and old children will have different patterns of time allocation. For those below 14, labor may conflict with school attendance but females in the 15 to 18 year group old may value the independent income they may earn from this.

> 10 With a sample mean of 28% for the variable (time spent studying), this represents an economically very meaningful increase of almost 30%. 11 Note that for all regressions except that for productive work, the estimated coefficient for the direct HSAA-effect (M*F) loses significance if once controls are introduced although the magnitude remains largely the same.

9