Although not shown, correlates of the amount of insurance and savings invested were explored. While risk-aversion is likely to significantly increase take-up of the agricultural investment savings product, its impact is not significant on take-up either of the insurance product or of the other savings products. Interestingly, receiving a higher amount of transfers from migrants over the three-month period preceding the baseline significantly reduces savings in the emergency savings product, both in the initial offer and one month later (columns 4 and 5), indicating that commitment is preferred by those with less buffer liquidity.

Before turning to the question of the impact of the four instruments, we detail what happened with the savings products during the one month between the experimental session and the input fair (for T1 to T4), and during the three months following the fair (for the extended savings product T4+). This helps us understand what might be driving the impact that we analyze in the following subsection.

The majority (96%) of individuals offered one of the two high commitment savings products kept a positive amount of savings with the group treasurer for the whole one-month duration of the experiment. They kept 4485 FCFA on average in their savings in Burkina Faso and 2742 FCFA in Senegal. In Senegal, a significantly higher number of participants withdrew from the envelope before one month (38%) than from the two high commitment savings products (10%) and they withdrew significantly higher amounts from the envelope (3618 CFA on average, 85% of their initial savings) than from the savings products with social commitment (around 2400 CFA, 65% of their savings), indicating that social commitment does help individuals save more for a longer period of time.<sup>3</sup> In contrast, in Burkina Faso, no individuals withdrew money from the envelope during the month it remained at home. This is consistent with the idea noted earlier that in Burkina Faso, participants in T2 did not believe the money in the envelope was truly theirs.

# **5.2. Impact**

In this section, we examine the impact of insurance and savings on outcomes measured one month after the experimental session and after harvest. Specifically we look at investment in farm inputs, agricultural output, savings and measures of food security and consumption. In order to examine the comparative advantages of each financial product, we estimate the intent to treat effect (ITT) by running the following regression: ��� = �� + ���� + ����,��� + ������ + ������� + ��� Eq. (1) where ��� stands for various types of agricultural investment, savings and consumption indicators measured for individual _i_ either at time _t_ , where _t_ is midline or endline. _Ti_ is a vector of treatment assignment dummies and ��,��� is the baseline measure of ��� . In all specifications, a gender and a country dummy is also included as the randomization was stratified by country and gender.

However, we may expect the impact of insurance to vary depending on how much insurance an individual decided to buy. We therefore also estimate the Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) of insurance and 3 Envelope withdrawal data for Burkina Faso are not available yet.

19