Table 5: Main treatment effects on conditional support

||Cash all<br>b/se/p|Cash poor<br>b/se/p|Tax cuts<br>b/se/p|Spend<br>b/se/p|Debt<br>b/se/p|Environ<br>b/se/p|Quality<br>b/se/p|Other<br>b/se/p|Index<br>b/se/p|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Any treatment|-0.006|-0.003|0.015**|0.005*|0.015*|0.002|0.014**|0.014***|0.016*|
||(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|
||0.301|0.582|0.026|0.051|0.076|0.610|0.022|0.004|0.058|
|Efciency treatment|-0.019**|-0.012*|-0.005|-0.002|-0.002|-0.017***|0.001|0.008|-0.013|
||(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|
||0.021|0.073|0.579|0.583|0.843|0.004|0.877|0.112|0.139|
|Equity treatment|-0.006|-0.000|0.018***|0.007*|0.016|0.000|0.016**|0.016**|0.019***|
||(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|
||0.389|0.935|0.004|0.088|0.100|0.976|0.020|0.016|0.008|
|Environment treatment|0.004|0.004|0.029***|0.010|0.029**|0.022**|0.023***|0.018**|0.038**|
||(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|
||0.552|0.573|0.006|0.158|0.020|0.011|0.009|0.027|0.016|
|p-value (Ef vs Equ)|0.103|0.070|0.002|0.142|0.084|0.010|0.080|0.204|0.003|
|p-value (Ef vs Env)|0.013|0.103|0.003|0.133|0.012|0.000|0.020|0.283|0.003|
|p-value (Equ vs Env)|0.014|0.526|0.221|0.691|0.187|0.004|0.232|0.864|0.073|
|Control Mean|0.570|0.662|0.663|0.812|0.645|0.729|0.735|0.626||
|Observations|37036|37036|37036|37036|37036|37036|37036|37036||

This table shows the overall impact of the treatments on respondents’ conditional support for subsidy reform. The regression analysis is based on Equations (1) and (2). Robust standard errors are in parenthesis and p-values of each treatment coefficient are presented below the standard errors. In addition, the table includes p-values comparing differences between the coefficients of the treatments. _Cash all:_ See Q25a, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if cash transfers were provided to all households. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Cash poor:_ See Q25b, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if cash transfers were provided to poor households. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Tax cut:_ See Q25c, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if income taxes were reduced. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Spend:_ See Q25d, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if resources were spent on better-quality schools, hospitals and roads. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Debt:_ See Q25e, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if resources were used to reduce public debt. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Environ:_ See Q25f, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if resources were used to invest in the environment. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Quality:_ See Q25g, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if resources were used to improve quality and access to energy. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent selects strongly support or support, 0 otherwise. _Other:_ See Q26, which asks about support for a reduction in energy subsidies, if resources were used for any policy option. The variable takes on the value of 1 if the respondent answers yes, 0 otherwise. _Index:_ An unweighted average of the z-scores of the conditional support outcome variables, oriented so that a higher index means more support.