after controlling for farmer and plot characteristics, inputs applied, and household fixed effects. The 2010 DSIP highlights the potential, in this context, for gender targeted interventions to achieve large productivity increases.

# **III. Data and Descriptive Statistics**

We use data from the first two rounds of the Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS), collected in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) with support from the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). The UNPS attempts to track and interview a nationally and regionally representative sample of 3,123 households interviewed for the Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS) in 2005/2006. The sample after attrition and the tracking of new split-off households was 2,975 for the 2009/2010 wave and 2,716 for the 2010/2011 wave.

Each household was interviewed twice per year, with six month intervals, and administered a comprehensive household questionnaire that collected disaggregated information on household demographics, education, health, labor, income sources, and access to financial services, assets, expenditure and consumption, among other topics. Households with agricultural activity were administered a detailed agricultural module that collected information on characteristics of the current land holding (owned, rented-in, and rented-out), as well as cropping and input decisions and crop output disaggregated at the plot-crop level. The agriculture module also includes information on training and extension services received by the household, livestock, and farm assets. Information on the harvest allows for clear identification of the plot owner(s), manager(s) and worker(s), including their gender.

We restrict our sample to season-plots for which non-zero crop harvest was reported during the relevant 6- month period, and for which none of our explanatory variables are missing. To allow the analysis to account for unobserved household-level characteristics, and to focus the analysis on within-household dynamics of similarly structured households, we restrict the sample to households in which the head is married, both the head and spouse cultivate at least one plot within the two sample years, and at least one plot is cultivated within each year. To simplify the analysis, we also exclude plots jointly managed by the head and spouse, although the results of our within-estimator (table 3) are consistent whether or not jointly-managed plots are included. Our final restricted sample thus includes 6,999 plots cultivated by 630 couples of which 3,499 are managed by females and the remaining 3,500 by the male spouses.

Table 1 presents the household-level descriptive statistics disaggregated by region. Sampled households include, on average, 7.1 household members, with a child dependency ratio, defined as the number of children under 10 years of age divided by number of household members over 10 years of age, of 0.7 children. Although female heads in the sample of married couple households are less than 3%, women on average managed close to 50% of their respective households’ cultivated land. The share of woman-cultivated land, about 60%, is higher in the Western region than the rest of the regions where the share is reported to be less than the overall average.

As expected, subsistence farming is by far the most important source of livelihood to the sampled households, ranging from 52% in the Central region to 76% in the Northern region. It is consistent with the fact that the 6