# _C. Main Results_

Table 5a and 5b, in Appendix II, report our main results. Columns 1, 3, 5, and 7 show the regression estimates without other relevant controls except for time and fixed effects. Columns 2, 4, 6, and 8 show the estimates after controlling for all the relevant controls such as climate, time, and fixed effects, the conflict dummy, and a control for expectation effects.

Table 5a reports the estimates of the post-accession impacts based on the presence of mineral deposits. Columns 1 and 2 show that the average impacts of post-accession on annual per capita growth in the treated compared to control districts are statistically insignificant. Columns 3 and 4 show the average impacts on migration. Similar to growth impacts in columns 1 and 2, the impacts on migration are also statistically insignificant. Columns 5 and 6 show the average impacts on spatial inequality. Columns 5 shows a statistically significant 3 percent reduction in spatial inequality in the treated compared to control districts. However, this effect is before the inclusion of the relevant controls; when these are included, the reduction becomes statistically no different from zero (column 6). Columns 7 and 8 depict the welfare impacts. Column 7 shows statistically significant gain of 1.04 index points on welfare in the treated districts relative to the control districts. When the regressions take into account the relevant controls, in column 8, this effect is reduced to 0.716 index points. With regard to the effects of mineral prices, Table 5a suggests that their coefficients are insignificant across the board. Similarly, the coefficients of the expectation effects are insignificant for all outcome variables except welfare, which suggests indirect spillover pre-accession impacts to control districts.

Table 5b reports estimates of the post-accession impacts based on the presence of active mining activities. Columns 1 and 2 show that the average impacts of post-accession on annual per capita growth in the treated compared to control districts were statistically not different from zero. Columns 3 and 4 show the average impacts on migration. Similar to growth impacts in columns 1 and 2, the impacts on migration are also statistically insignificant. Columns 5 and 6 show the average impacts on spatial inequality. Similar to Table 5a, Column 5 shows a statistically significant 3 percent reduction in spatial inequality in the treated compared to control districts. However, this effect is not different from zero when the relevant controls are accounted for in column 6. Columns 7 and 8 show the welfare impacts. Column 7 shows a statistically significant gain of 1.10 index points on welfare in the treated relative to the control districts. When the regressions take into account the relevant controls, in column 8, this effect is reduced to 0.744 index points. The effects on mineral prices and expectation effects are similar to those in Table 5a.

# _D. Robustness Checks_

Tables 6a–6d, in Appendix II, report the robustness checks to our main results. Columns 1-4 present the estimates using USGS historical average prices as controls while columns 5-8 use the World Bank’s real prices data. Tables 6a and 6b replicate similar estimates as in Tables 5a and 5b, respectively. Tables 6c and 6d re-estimate the baseline model with different outcome variables; 18