discussions about FP with their mothers-in-law. This evidence suggests that women did not try to “hide” their intentions to visit the ADC for FP from their mothers-in-law. Third, there was no significant endline difference between treatment and control women in the likelihood of ever facing any problems or negative experiences from discussing or accessing or using a method of FP.<sup>54</sup> Fourth, we do not find any significant effect of the vouchers on women’s or their husbands’ (as reported by the sample women) satisfaction with their sex life or overall satisfaction with their marriage. These results are available in Table A.12.

**B. The Role of Financial Constraints.** Our interventions are also able to relax women’s financial constraints to access and use of FP by providing vouchers that lower the monetary costs of visiting FP clinics and adopting contraception. Key monetary costs that are alleviated by our intervention include fees for FP services and methods, transportation costs, and opportunity costs of visiting any FP clinic. Therefore, we expect that the observed positive treatment effects on clinic visits and contraceptive use will be more pronounced for women who belonged to poorer households at baseline. In Table A.13, we examine the heterogeneity in treatment effects by women’s household poverty status at baseline using a fully interacted model. Ideally, we would like to use a woman’s household income at baseline to capture her financial constraints; however, it is difficult to measure income in rural households like those in our sample (Meyer and Sullivan, 2003). Instead, we define a woman to be poor at baseline if her household is below the poverty line and is in the bottom two terciles of the asset index distribution in our sample. For this analysis, we pool the two treatment groups (BAF and Own vouchers) because (a) women in both groups received exactly the same voucher, and therefore the same monetary incentives, for their own use and (b) we do not expect that a woman’s financial constraints are affected by her peers’ access to vouchers for themselves since the vouchers are not transferable.<sup>55</sup>

Table A.13 shows that the positive effects of voucher receipt on a woman’s likelihood of visiting the ADC or any clinic for FP services and on her modern contraceptive use were larger for women who were poorer at baseline. For instance, poorer women experienced a 13 p.p. larger increase in the likelihood of visiting the ADC and a 19 p.p. larger increase in modern method use relative to less poor women. These effects are substantial especially given that the poorer control women had almost never visited the ADC at baseline, suggesting that the ADC, which is a private clinic, might have been out of reach for financially constrained women. Overall, these results are consistent with prior literature in showing that vouchers can overcome constraints to women’s FP use.

> 54About 8 percent of our sample women at endline reported ever experiencing problems or negative experiences from discussing or accessing or using a method of FP and only 1 percent of the sample reported having a negative experience with their husbands or parents-in-law.

> 55This would not be the case if BAF women, for instance, were able to extract transfers from their peers in exchange for inviting them to visit the ADC with them. However, treated women did not report doing so in our endline survey.

24