divide all the eligible and interested into beneficiaries (RMG) and a waitlist (WL).<sup>6</sup> In this paper, we focus on the first step of the selection process. In order to qualify as ‘RMG-eligible’, registrants had to be at least 18 years old, female, and able-bodied. Women from poorer households were given priority based on the household poverty rank (poorest, poor, middle income and better off). Specifically, women in the bottom two poverty ranks (poorest and poor) were first granted entry. If the village quota for RMG-eligible was met, the process ended. If the quota was not met, women from the next poverty rank (middle-Income) were then entered. If the quota was still not met, women from the next poverty rank (better-off) were also entered. Eligibility was thus determined by poverty bracket; no distinction was made between women of the same bracket.

The poverty status of each household was determined through a process that combined PMT, communityparticipation, and village-head updating. Household poverty ranks were originally constructed by PRF in 2016 based on PMT. In each village, there was a multi-day participatory process of PMT verification and adjustment by which households were assigned poverty ranks. During the registration process for the RMG program in 2018, village heads updated these rankings to account for changes in the two years since the original ranking. Twenty-four percent of households changed their poverty rank as a result of this updating.

Figure 1 plots the original ranking against ranking by the village heads in 2018. Overall, 174 households changed poverty category.<sup>7</sup> Among them, 74 (10 percent) became less poor: moved from poorest to poor or middle income, from poor to middle income, or from middle income to better off. One hundred (14 percent) became poorer, moving from better off to middle income, poor and poorest, from middle income to poor and poorest, or from poor to poorest. If these movements reflect real changes in household welfare, reliance on village heads is efficiency improving. It would allow PRF to allocate the RMG program considering recent changes in household welfare, without carrying out another PMT test and community validation, which at the moment of the RMG program launch were prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, the change in poverty ranking of 24 percent of interested households may reflect nepotism, or as discussed above, be based on a definition of poverty different from the one preferred by PRF.

A priori, we believe the former hypothesis to be more likely. First, village head is an elected position. Specifically, the village head is first elected by villagers, and then approved by district governor. The term lasts for 3 years, and village head can be re-elected. Notably, the villagers can report to the district management office, if they are not happy with the village head, and request re-election/re-appointment. Consequently, there are accountability mechanisms that create disincentives to engage in nepotism.

Second, assessment of poverty status of the villagers is included in responsibilities of village heads. Decree on the Criteria for Poverty Graduation and Development outlines six criteria for graduating from poverty, and village heads should be receiving training on these criteria. These criteria are: (1) have safe and strong housing; (2) have assets and equipment necessary for their livelihoods and income generation; (3) have

> 6 PRF agreed to introduce randomized assignment of jobs with two objectives: (i) fair and transparent allocation of the jobs; (ii) possibility to carry out an impact evaluation of the RMG program. The data analyzed in this paper were collected as part of the IE.

> 7 We have the original 2016 poverty ranks for 716 households. For other 430 households, the rankings were not available. We are confirming the role of village heads in assigning these rankings.

5