holds from which individuals were matched<sup>17</sup> with the official demobilization registers ( _Di_<sup>_FNL_2</sup> and _D_<sup>_CNDD_</sup> _i_<sup>+2</sup> ). The third definition is based on self-reported data, and includes anyone who declared to be demobilized, that is, to have received the cash ( _Di_<sup>_FNL_3</sup> and _D_<sup>_CNDD_</sup> _i_<sup>+3</sup> ). The last definition is more likely to contain measurement errors as it is based on self-reports; its associated coefficients will presumably be biased towards zero (Hausman, 2001). The three different indicators will be compared in the empirical analysis.<sup>18</sup> Table 2: Construction of ex-rebel household variables

||CNDD+|FNL|Total|Variable o|f interest|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||CNDD+|FNL|
|**Member declared having ties with the factions**||||||
|but did not receive anything|8|10|18|||
|and to be GdP/MC/AA|6|4|10|||
|**Demobilized ex-combatant member**||||||
|Member declared to be demobilized|14|9|23|_D_<sup>_CNDD_+3</sup><br>_i_|_D_<sup>_FNL_3</sup><br>_i_|
|And not recorded in ofcial registers|8|5|13|||
|And recorded in ofcial registers|6|4|10|_D_<sup>_CNDD_+1</sup><br>_i_|_D_<sup>_FNL_1</sup><br>_i_|
|Not declared but matched with registers|1|7|8|||
|Total matched with registers (declared or not)|7|11|18|_D_<sup>_CNDD_+2</sup><br>_i_|_D_<sup>_FNL_2</sup><br>_i_|
|**Totals**||||||
|Households belonging to a faction (without matches)|28|21<sup>∗</sup>|49|_R_<sup>_CNDD_+1</sup><br>_i_|_R_<sup>_FNL_1</sup><br>_i_|
|Households belonging to a faction (with matches)|29|28|57|_R_<sup>_CNDD_+2</sup><br>_i_|_R_<sup>_FNL_2</sup><br>_i_|

_Notes_ : Authors’ analysis based on data described in the text. For two households, there were two persons reporting to have ties with the FNL. In one household, both declared to be demobilized in 2009 but none was officially recorded. In another household, there was one recorded ex-combatant, while his brother had not received anything. The related dummies take the value one for each case but the return variable is restricted to one for both cases.

We argue that the second definition is the most appropriate for two reasons. First, the matching exercise with official demobilization registers should capture respondents who feared reporting that there is an ex-combatant in their family. Second, cross-checking self-reported demobilization status with official demobilization registers should exclude households who wrongly 17We undertook this matching exercise using generalized Levenshtein edit distance, which is the total number of insertions, deletions and substitutions required to transform one string into another. We matched the names, age, sex and the code of the colline of return of the ex-combatants listed in the official demobilization registers with the household information available in our panel dataset. We use a maximum number of transformation of 2 for string variables (first name, last name, both), a range of [-10,+10] from the age reported, and the match had to be perfect for the colline’s code and gender. We did this exercise twice, once matching each entry in the registers to the panel data; and once the other way around. As names are very similar in Burundi, and many people can have the same last name (all twins have the same last names; siblings’ last names are different and are chosen according to various contextual factors), we made sure to only consider as matches cases where names contain typos. We found eight matches, which supports the fact that we were very restrictive.

> 18One should note that the number of registered ex-combatants in our sample is representative of the true excombatants’ density and that an over-sampling of ex-combatants was not compatible with having a panel.

14