practices; it may also have affected how transfer income was used through a flypaper or labeling effect.<sup>3</sup> Such changes in behaviors could be further enhanced through social interactions with other program beneficiaries and peer pressure (Macours and Vakis 2008). Finally, _Atención a Crisis_ transfers are made to women, and there is some evidence that income controlled by women is spent in a way that benefits children more than income that is controlled by men.<sup>4</sup> Understanding the impact of a program like _Atención a Crisis_ on cognitive development in early childhood is important for a number of reasons. One reason is the popularity of cash transfer programs in the developing world. A recent World Bank study estimates that at least 24 developing countries have a conditional cash transfer program in place, and many others have programs that transfer cash without conditions (Fiszbein and Schady 2008). In many cases, including in Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador, and South Africa, the cash transfer program is the biggest safety net program in the country.

A large number of studies have assessed the impact of cash transfers, conditional and unconditional, on health status, nutrition, and education.<sup>5</sup> In contrast, we are aware of only two earlier studies which estimate the impact of a cash transfer program on cognitive development. Fernald et al. (2008) suggest that larger transfers made by the PROGRESA-Oportunidades program in Mexico resulted in better nutritional status, improved motor skills, and higher levels of cognitive development. However, the outcomes they study were collected too long after the initial control group in the study had been folded into the program for the authors to use the initial random assignment for identification. Paxson and Schady (2008) use random

> 3 See Thaler (1999) for a general discussion.  Fraker et al. (1995) presents evidence for the US, Kooreman (2000) for the Netherlands, Jacoby (2002) for the Philippines, and Islam and Hoddinott (2008) for Guatemala.  An exception is Edmonds (2002) who finds no evidence of labeling effects for child benefit income in Slovenia.

4 For example, Thomas (1990), Hoddinott and Haddad (1995), Doss (2005), and Schady and Rosero (2008) show that income controlled by women is associated with higher expenditures on food. Macours and Vakis (2007) show nonexperimental evidence on the positive impact of mother’s seasonal migration on children’s cognitive development that is consistent with this hypothesis. Lundberg et al. (1997) and Ward-Batts (2008) present quasi-experimental evidence from the United Kingdom to argue that income controlled by women is more likely to be spent on clothing for women and children than income controlled by men.

5 The literature is extensive. On education outcomes see, among others, Schultz (2004) and Behrman et al. (2005) on Mexico; Schady and Araujo (2008) on Ecuador; Attanasio et al. (2005) on Colombia; Glewwe and Olinto (2004) on Honduras; Maluccio and Flores (2005) on Nicaragua; and Edmonds (2006) on South Africa. Macours and Vakis (2008) show education impacts of _Atención a Crisis_ . On health outcomes see, among others, Gertler (2004), Behrman and Hoddinott (2005), and Rivera et al. (2004) on Mexico, Morris et al. (2004a) on Honduras; Morris et al. (2004b) on Brazil, and Duflo (2003) and Agüero et al. (2006) on South Africa. Fiszbein and Schady (2008) review the findings from these studies.

3