Table 10: Action plan tasks

||Have an<br>action<br>plan<br>(EL)|Have an<br>action<br>plan with<br>pure<br>control<br>(EL)|All tasks<br>in AP<br>(PT)|<br>Family<br>tasks in<br>AP (PT)|Planter<br>tasks in<br>AP (PT)|Planter<br>tasks in<br>AP with<br>sole<br>responsi<br>bility<br>(PT)|Spouse<br>tasks in<br>AP (PT)|<br>Spouse<br>tasks in AP<br>with sole<br>responsibilit<br>y (PT)|Hired<br>labor<br>tasks in<br>AP (PT)|<br>Fraction of<br>tasks with<br>assigned<br>person in AP<br>(PT)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Seedling Subsidy||0.15***<br>(0.04)|||||||||
|Couples' Training|0.07*|0.07*|1.99**|0.21**|0.41|0.43|1.27***|<br>1.30***|0.35**|0.12**|
||(0.04)|(0.04)|(0.95)|(0.08)|(0.47)|(0.41)|(0.40)|(0.37)|(0.16)|(0.06)|
|Seedling Subsidy + Couples'<br>Training (beta)||0.22***|||||||||
|H0: Seedling Subsidy +<br>Couples' Training = 0 (p-val)||0.00|||||||||
|Observations|919|1420|927|927|927|927|927|927|927|927|
|Mean for control group||0.19|||||||||
|Mean for individual training|0.37|0.37|4.32|0.06|1.82|1.36|0.55|0.20|0.25|0.30|

Robust and clustered standard errors in parentheses. * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01 Note: PT stands for post-treatment, EL stands for endline. Individuals who did not take part in the training and did not create action plans are recoded as zeros in post-treatment regressions (PT). Baseline control variables in all regressions: Age of household head, Household size, Number of adults, Number of children, Dependency ratio, Married planter, Polygamous relationship, Matrilineal ethnicity, Planter has IGA, Asset index, Credit constrained, Share of plots owned, Average distance to plots (minutes), Number of plots, Average plot size.

In Appendix Table 9, we re-run the same analysis restricting the sample only to famers who participated in the training (i.e., excluding farmers who were assigned to the training but did not complete it, rather than setting their observations to zero as in Table 10). In this specification, we do not detect an overall increase in tasks in the action plan as a result of the couples’ training, indicating that results in Table 10 were driven by couples’ training households being more likely to fill out an action plan at all. However, the allocation of tasks is not driven by this extensive margin effect. In this restricted sample, the impact of the couples’ training group on the number of tasks managed by the spouse is even larger: a four-fold increase. We do not detect a change in the number of tasks managed by the planter or hired labor. But we do see a significant increase in the number of family tasks, as well as a significantly higher fraction of tasks with assigned individuals. Taken together, these results indicate more complete and durable planning as a result of the couples’ training. Moreover, these households show a marked increase in the wife’s role in taking responsibility for and managing tasks.

To better understand the shift in management that is happening within couples’ training households, we turn to examining which categories of tasks become assigned to spouses. As increases in the use of phytosanitary products and chemical fertilizer were most pronounced on rubber plots, we are particularly interested to see whether changes in planned management concern tasks related to input use. In Appendix Table 10 and Appendix Table 11 we report the number of tasks listed in the action plans that mentioned phytosanitary products and fertilizer, respectively. Overall, we find non-significant increases in tasks mentioning phytosanitary products and fertilizer in the action plan, but significant increases in the number of these tasks managed _solely_ by the spouse. This result highlights that including the wife in economic 2