While Amuedo-Dorantes (2015) shows that _70 y mas_ crowded out domestic private gifts by 37% for the rural elderly of 70 years of age or older between 2006 and 2008, we did not find an effect statistically different from zero for the elderly between 66 and 69 years old living in rural and urban localities between 2012 and 2014. We conclude that PAM did not have crowding out effects on international or domestic remittances received by the elderly 66 to 69 years old. Table 9 shows these results.

_Table 9: Program Effects on Private Transfers from Other Households and Remittances_

||_Private Tr_|_ansfers_|_Remittan_|_ces_|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||**No controls**|**Controls**|**No controls**|**Controls**|
|Treat*year 2014|0.228*|0.167|-0.074|-0.263|
||[-0.133]|[-0.110]|[-0.201]|[-0.180]|
|Treat|0.021|-0.017|0.0752|0.156|
||[-0.081]|-0.073|[-0.15]|[-0.13]|
|Year2014|0.657***|0.437|0.055|-0.580|
||[-0.098]|[-0.507]|[-0.161]|[-0.991]|
|Observations|5,553|5,553|1,163|1,163|

Note: We report the standard errors in brackets. The standard errors are heteroscedasticity-robust and clustered at the primary sampling unit level. The column titled "controls" show the results of estimations in which the following conditioning variables were used: employment status, village size range, years of schooling, literacy, household size, dwelling’s ownership status, sex, indigenous language speaker status, disability condition, household structure, marital status, income from the Conditional Cash Transfer Program - PROSPERA and a full set of interactions between the preceding covariates and the time dummy.

# **3.6.2 Robustness Checks for ITT**

As a first robustness check, we implemented the difference-in-differences model with the treatment and control groups using data from a previous period, that is, instead of using 2012 and 2014, we used 2010 and 2012 data. We ran this robustness check for the extreme poverty headcount, the extreme poverty gap, the extreme poverty severity, and the multidimensional extreme poverty indexes. The results show that the estimates are not statistically different from zero. Similarly, we ran the robustness check to test whether the placebo intervention had an effect on social right deprivations from 2010 to 2012 and did not find any effects. These results are shown in Appendix F, Table F.1 through F.4. We show that not only did the intervention have an effect where it was expected to have one, but also, we show that a placebo intervention does not have an effect where one is not expected. Similarly, Tables F.5 to F.7 show no intervention effects on labor force participation, use of time and private transfers.

The second robustness check we implemented was to replace our outcome variables (e. g. FGT measures) with outcome variables that are not supposed to be affected by the program in the short term. We ran the difference-in-differences model with the LPM, Probit, and Logit models with and without controlling variables and found no effects on variables such as disability condition, indigenous language speaker condition, access to drinking water, or access to sewage. Table F.8 in Appendix F show these results.

As a third robustness check, we estimated the short term program effects on the eligible-for-treatment group aged 66 to 69 years old who do not receive contributory pensions but instead of comparing the average change of this group to the average change of the non-elderly individuals aged 61 to 64 24