are reported attending school as the only activity in the week prior the follow-up interview, 5 percent are reported only working, 1 percent combining both school attendance and work, 10 percent neither working nor attending. In cash localities we observe a 6.2 percentage point reduction in the share of students who reported only attending school in the week prior to the interview, as opposed to a null effect in the in-kind localities. The difference between the two treatment types is statically significant at 10 percent level. In cash localities we observe an increase both in the share of students who report combining school and work, and in the share of those for whom work is the only activity. For the latter, the difference with the in-kind transfer localities is statistically significant at 5 percent level. When we look at the number of hours of work, we do observe an increase by 1.6 hours for children in the cash group, as opposed to a negative but very small effect in the in-kind group. The difference between the groups is large in terms of size - equivalent to the average number of hours in the control group, and statistically significant (p-value=0.07).

We use data from the _Enlace de contexto_ to study the labor response for a subgroup of students for which we observe the test scores. While the information from the _Enlace de contexto_ is only representative for the selected sample of exam takers, it provides direct evidence on the behavior of children who attend school.<sup>21</sup> All surveys between 2008 and 2013 ask students how many days on average they are involved in labor activities, while surveys from 2011 to 2013 also ask how much time students dedicated to household chores in the week prior to the interview. Although in principle student reported information might not accurately reflect actual labor activities, we do find a strong and statically significant negative association between results in the standardized test and number of working days reported in the _Enlace de contexto_ (Appendix Figure A1). The impacts of PAL are reported in columns 6 and 7 in Table 10. We do observe increases in the number of working days among students from both in-kind and cash localities, with the effect being particularly large for the latter although the differential treatment is not statically significant at conventional levels. Similarly we do observe a large increase in the share of children who report helping with household work but the effects are not statistically significant, arguably for the limited sample size.

Basu et al. (2010) suggest that, in the presence of multiple factor market failures, the introduction or expansion of a productive asset could result in increases in child labor. Information from the baseline household survey shows that the probability that a child age 12-13 exclusively attends school declines with the total number of animals owned by her family while

> 21We test whether characteristics are balanced across the three groups for the students we find in the _ENLACE de Contexto_ . Table A7 reports pre-intervention sample means by treatment group. Overall, characteristics of students observed in _ENLACE de Contexto_ are balanced with very few exceptions.

19