The combination of social mobilization, skills training, savings and increased borrowing has translated into a higher increase into productive investments. The poorest households were able to operate a little more land (a quarter of an acre more for the poorest) and invested in livestock and durable assets (see Table A.2 and Table A.3). ST participants accumulated more livestock over non-participants than the average. Length of exposure did not make much of a difference, including for livestock, which is not surprising since acquiring livestock is commonly one of the first investments women make when they can access funds under IKP. Poor households also invested in land operated and livestock, but differences with non-participants, while positive, were generally not significant. They also invested in non-farm assets (such as means of transport) more than the poorest. Non-poor participants bought more land. The fact that only non-poor participants showed significant differences in land owned may point to the difficulties poorest and poor households experience in acquiring land and provide a rationale for the efforts made in recent years by IKP to facilitate land titling for the poorest.

Increased availability of funds also translated into greater spending on education for poorest and poor households, across lengths of exposure. Effects on total and food expenditures were more muted. Poorest participants were able to spend more than non-participants, but generally not significantly so. To illustrate, in 2004, total monthly per capita expenditures were Rs. 484 for the poorest early joiners and Rs. 482 for matched non-participants (this small difference is by design, since total expenditures are included in the matching algorithm). In 2008, expenditures were Rs. 716 and Rs. 643 respectively (in 2004 prices). Thus, poorest participants saw an increase of Rs. 232 against Rs. 161 for non-participants—an additional gain (or DID) of Rs. 71, or 44 percent more than non-participants (our counterfactual) (Table 8).

**Table 8: Changes in total monthly pc expenditures for poorest early joiners and matched non-** **<u>participants, 2004 to 2008</u>**

|_Total monthly per capita expenditures,_<br>_2004 Rs._|_Poorest_<br>_early_<br>_program_<br>_participants_|_Poorest_<br>_program_<br>_non-partic.,_<br>_matched_|_Difference_<br>_partic. vs._<br>_non-partic._|
|---|---|---|---|
|2004|484|482|2|
|2008|716|643|73*|
|_Difference 2004-2008_|232|161|71*|
|Percentage change over non-participants|||44%*|
|Annual rate ofgrowth|9.1%|6.6%||

Note: nearest neighbor propensity score matching, regression-adjusted, with survey weights.

This additional total monthly per capita expenditure (Rs. 71) is 24 percent of the 2004-05 rural poverty line for Andhra Pradesh, which was Rs 293 monthly per capita (Government of India, 2007).<sup>18</sup> Total monthly per capita expenditures grew at an annual rate of more than 9 percent for the poorest participants versus 6.6 percent for non-participants. So the gain for participants over non-participants is not huge but not insignificant either.

> 18 We use the old poverty lines, not the Tendulkar lines, since we refer to 2004. Note that our poorest households had 2004 expenditure levels well above the poverty line, while being defined as "poorest"--on average Rs. 455 monthly per capita.  This discrepancy warrants further investigation.

12