public awareness of the value of daughters. Progress under this project is a key government priority, as highlighted by the fact that it is part of the local family planning officials’ work evaluations. Another example of an education-centered benefits scheme is the Spring Buds program that allocates money for girls in rural families to continue their education.

There are no rigorous evaluations of the causal impact of these benefits programs on SRB, female child survival, and son preference. It is difficult to isolate the cash transfers’ effect from the other programs bundled into the “Care for Girls” effort. However, there are some criticisms of the program that need to be noted. The criticisms of the program draw on observational data, key informant interviews at various administrative levels, government policy documents, and other policy reviews.

First, while the funding for most “Care for Girls” efforts come from central, provincial, and local authorities, the funding for the benefits program comes solely from local authorities. This makes the liquidity of the program contingent on local economic development; poorer counties are less likely to implement such schemes. The design of the programs is also determined at the county level. The effectiveness of these schemes in changing child sex preferences is contingent on how local authorities prioritize and manage the issue (Li 2007). For example, in some counties, local businesses are obliged to donate to the “Care for Girls” foundation fund, and this fund is used to cover the benefits provided to girl-only families (Murphy 2014). Whether local businesses are required to participate in these efforts, and if so, how much they donate and how they are made to comply with the requirements for donations, will vary across counties.

Second, the program is focused on girl-only families. The program effectively leaves out girls with a male sibling, who are arguably vulnerable in their own way, given that they must face tough competition for parental resources. Take the case of the Spring Buds program. This program, initially managed by the provincial and county women’s federation groups, allocated money to poor families with girls to assist with educational attainment. However, in many counties, this program was co-opted by the “Care for Girls” effort, and the assistance to girls with male siblings stopped (Murphy 2014).

Third, the notion that families need to be “compensated” for having a girl needs to be examined. Does a CCT program tacitly agree that boys and girls are unequal, with girls being more a liability to families? What message does this framing send to young girls in their early years? Even if we argue that the CCT is intended as a more immediate measure to curb discrimination against girls, we must ask whether it changes parents’ gender preferences. In-depth interview data from Murphy’s (2014) qualitative study suggest that girl-only families that receive financial assistance display gratitude towards the government, but they do not display a change in attitude towards daughters. Evaluations of India’s CCT programs come to similar conclusions on this.

# **4. Indirect Measures**

Existing evidence suggests that compared to direct measures, indirect measures offer more promise in changing imbalanced child sex ratios and improving the status of women and girls in the longterm because they address the main causes of son preference. Indirect measures can include reform in areas such as property rights, old-age support, political participation, education and employment 28