but if one compares areas that just have SFD health projects with areas that have no health projects, the SFD areas are poorer. This is not compelling, and suggests that our propensity score matching may not be controlling adequately for other influences in these cases.

**Table 10.** **<u>Summary of Effects of SFD Interventions in Health</u>**

|||SFD inte<br>inter<br>|rvention v<br>vention[A<br>|s. no SFD<br>vs. B]<br>|SFD int<br>interve<br>|ervention on<br>ntion at all[<br>|ly vs. no<br>D vs. F]<br>|SFD inter<br>other inter<br>|vention wit<br>ventions on<br>|h others vs.<br>ly [C vs. E]<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Mean|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|<br>Kernel|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|
|Under-5<br>mortalityrate|19.9|-6.19*<br>(-1.92)|-7.29<br>(-0.96)|-5.92<br>(-1.55)|-4.41<br>(-1.00)|-16.52<br>(-0.74)|-4.32<br>(-0.90)|-8.71*<br>(-1.84)|-11.75<br>(-0.97)|-9.25*<br>(-1.65)|
|Expenditure on|50.9|-8.69***|-3.79|-10.18|-10.00***|-8.91*|-12.70***|-7.82**|-0.79|-6.88*|
|Health||(-3.75)|(-0.88)|(-3.25)|(-3.32)|(-1.77)|(0.63)|(-2.17)|(-0.12)|(-1.69)|
|Poverty Rate|4.5|0.15|-0.20|0.44|2.16***|3.43***|2.68***|-1.57***|-2.07*|-1.48***|
|||(0.59)|(0.28)|(0.86)|(6.37)|(3.03)|(3.26)|(-4.37)|(1.95)|(-2.85)|

_Notes:_ Numbers in parentheses are t-statistics, * significant at 10% level, ** significant at 5% level, *** significant at 1% level. All results are derived by first estimating a propensity score equation, and then confining the regression, nearest-neighbor matching, or kernel matching, to the region of common support. _Source:_ Authors’ calculations based on HIECS and community survey 2004/2005.

The SFD has spent LE 620 million on providing potable water, including a public network of 8,480 kilometers. As Table 11 shows, this has led to sharp drops in spending on water and on health care. It is noteworthy that the reduction in health spending here is twice as large as the reduction associated with SFD health projects. There is also some modest evidence in Table 11 that the provision of potable water has led to a lower child mortality rate.

The effects on poverty of providing potable water are more mixed; where SFD projects are in addition to other interventions, they help reduce poverty, but not otherwise.

**Table 11.** **<u>Summary of Effects of SFD Interventions in Potable Water Provision</u>**

|||SFD inte<br>interv<br>|rvention vs<br>ention[A v<br>|. no SFD<br>s. B]<br>|SFD inte<br>interven<br>|rvention on<br>tion at all[ <br>|ly vs. no<br>D vs. F]<br>|SFD interv<br>other interv<br>|ention with<br>entions on<br>|others vs.<br>ly [C vs. E]<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Mean|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|
|Expenditure on<br>water|17.2|-1.53***<br>(-3.61)|-1.72*<br>(-1.88)|-1.42***<br>(-2.65)|-2.83***<br>(-3.48)|-0.90<br>(-0.64)|-1.76*<br>(-1.70)|-1.02**<br>(-2.03)|-1.92*<br>(-1.88)|-1.39**<br>(-2.36)|
|Under-5<br>mortalityrate|19.9|-3.87<br>(-1.25)|-0.93<br>(-0.11)|-4.19<br>(-1.10)|2.30<br>(0.39)|2.59<br>(0.16)|1.71<br>(0.24)|-5.94*<br>(-1.16)|4.85<br>(0.84)|-4.07<br>(-0.84)|
|Expenditure on|50.9|-15.36***|-23.87***|-13.85**|-21.42***|-16.22*|-17.00***|-12.13***|-17.78**|-12.72***|
|Health||(-4.16)|(-3.63)|(-4.05)|(-3.47)|(-1.76)|(-3.31)|(-2.69)|(-2.20)|(-3.87)|
|Poverty Rate|3.9|-0.36*<br>(-1.66)|-0.57<br>(-1.15)|-0.15<br>(-0.41)|0.64<br>(1.61)|0.20<br>(0.23)|0.40<br>(0.53)|-0.81***<br>(-3.22)|-0.76<br> (-1.4)|-0.40<br>(-1.06)|

_Notes:_ Numbers in parentheses are t-statistics, * significant at 10% level, ** significant at 5% level, *** significant at 1% level. All results are derived by first estimating a propensity score equation, and then confining the regression, nearest-neighbor matching, or kernel matching, to the region of common support. _Source:_ Authors’ calculations based on HIECS and community survey 2004/2005.

The sanitation projects of the SFD consist mainly of constructing public networks and providing house connections. These activities have had the expected effects – increasing access to sewerage networks, halving household spending on sanitation, and lowering the poverty rate. These effects are especially _Impact Evaluation: Egyptian Social Fund for Development_ _Version of June 29, 2009_ _Page 19 of 36_