impacts on the number of children the woman has. However, among all women, the unconditional measure of number of children does fall among the treated relative to the control group. The results also show a large and significant increase in pregnancies among the treatment group. Once again, this may be a purely mechanical result of the control group’s higher pregnancy rate at baseline (making it less likely that they would be pregnant again just one year later). For this reason, we once again interact treatment with an indicator of not being pregnant at baseline. This interacted regression yields a smaller but still large and significant increase of two percentage points in the likelihood of being pregnant. Taking the three outcomes together (a weak reduction in the likelihood of having any children, a significant reduction in the number of children, and a significant increase in pregnancy among the treated), it appears that EPAG did not have any net impact on actual fertility. A simple cross-sectional comparison of the likelihood of being a mother and the likelihood of being pregnant, excluding those who were pregnant at baseline, confirms that there are no significant differences in either indicator at midline. This may not represent a true reduction in lifetime fertility: the treatment group may simply be delaying pregnancy for the duration of their participation in the program (although this may demonstrate empowerment over the timing of pregnancy).

Aside from fertility-related outcomes, the EPAG program does not appear to have affected sexual behaviors among its participants. Although control over income is often emphasized as a determinant of women’s sexual empowerment and control, there appears to be no impact, at least in this short run, on the number of sexual partners or the decision to use a condom. On average, these young women have one regular partner, and use condoms about half the time. There is no distinction by treatment group. Reported condom use, in particular, is much higher in this survey than among similar age groups in nationally representative surveys such as DHS, and it is not clear whether the non-result is driven by measurement error or simply the already high baseline rate of condom usage.

On the one hand, the lack of impacts on fertility and sexual behaviors are not surprising, since one might expect that behavior changes of this sort more specific and longer-term interventions. Reducing fertility was not, after all, an objective of the EPAG program. On the other hand, recent studies have shown a causal link between cash transfers conditioned on school attendance and reduced fertility (Baird 2010) and economic empowerment and reduced fertility (Bandiera 2012, Ibarrarán 2012), even in the short run. The lack of impact in this study points to a need for further research on the conditions under which economic empowerment may lead to reduced fertility, the mechanisms of change, and the length of time required to affect change.

# 4.5. Effects on the household

A central question of this impact evaluation is to what extent any improvements in the employment of young women spill over onto the household in which she resides. Numerous studies have found that increased monetary resources in the hands of women lead to improved well-being of other household members, especially children,<sup>24</sup> leading researchers to hypothesize that women are more likely to spend

> 24 See for example Pitt 1998, Hoddinott 1995, and King 2001. Borges 2007, in particular, has a frequently cited claim that women reinvest 90% of their income in their household compared to 30-40% for men.

19