# **_7. Summary and conclusions_**

Our analysis of the Andhra Pradesh rural livelihoods program Indira Kranti Patham between 2004 and 2008 detects two major impacts. First, IKP increased participants' access to loans, which allowed them to accumulate some assets (livestock and durables for the poorest, non-farm assets for the poor), invest in education, and increase total expenditures (for the poorest and poor). Women who participated in IKP had more freedom to go places and were less afraid to disagree with their husbands; they participated more in village meetings, and their children were slightly more likely to be attending school.

Consistently with the emphasis of the program on the poor, we find that impacts were stronger across the board for poorest and poor participants, and are significant for long-term Scheduled Tribe participants, whose gains over non-participants were higher than the average for savings, livestock assets, total and education expenditures, and the probability that children were currently in school. Asset accumulation was generally stronger with longer length of exposure. We find no significant differences between participants and non-participants in some maternal and child health indicators, including family planning, assisted deliveries, breastfeeding, immunization cards, and knowledge of diarrhea treatment, with fairly low levels. This is perhaps not surprising, given that IKP did not focus on maternal and child health in 2004-2008.

Second, IKP participants were significantly more likely to benefit from various targeted government programs, most important the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme but also midday meals in schools, hostels, and housing programs. This was certainly an important way in which IKP contributed to improved wellbeing of program participants.

While propensity score matching and difference-in-difference allow us to obtain reasonably reliable estimates of impacts for program participants versus non-program participants in program villages, an important implication of the fact that there are no control villages is that we are unable to assess gains that may have accrued to all—both group participants and nonparticipants. We are only able to assess the gains to program participants that are _additional_ to any gains that might have accrued equally to all households in a program village (i.e., net of the 'positive externalities' on all households in the village). If the program had positive spillover effects on non-participants (as found by Deininger and Liu (2013)), the overall impact of the program would be larger than indicated by our results. This needs to be kept in mind particularly when looking at outcomes where spillovers are probably larger, such as those related to empowerment and education.

In terms of program design, the results confirm a number of directions taken since 2008. First, while efforts were already underway prior to 2008 to ensure all poorest and poor women were members of groups, comparisons of participants and non-participants before matching do indicate that non-participants were generally worse off and more likely to be socially excluded than participants. This underscores the importance of the focus on the poorest pursued by IKP in recent years (the so-called "poorest of the poor" strategy). Second, greater emphasis on interventions to enhance the productive capacity of the poorest makes sense to move beyond livestock assets and towards farm and non-farm assets. Third, lack of improvement in indicators of child and maternal health points in the direction of strengthening services for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, as has been done over the last five years through the nutrition-cum-daycare centers.

24