between saturation and an indicator for saturation above 0.65 for the price of eggs.<sup>23</sup> The corresponding coefficient in the national data (reported in Table 3) is 0.08. The estimated effect from the unit values is smaller than that obtained from the price analysis; if the quality upgrading were significant, we would expect bigger effects from the unit values.

In sum, results from all three independent sources of price data suggest a modest but persistent increase in the relative price of protein rich foods.<sup>24</sup> Are these relatively small magnitudes of uncompensated price changes large enough to shift demand choices of the nonbeneficiary households? We return to the survey data to investigate this question.

# **_Impacts on Nonbeneficiaries_**

So far, the analysis has demonstrated that the program improved outcomes for children from beneficiary households while concomitantly raising their consumption of protein-rich foods. The analysis has also identified a rise in the price of selected non-tradable goods, at least for highly saturated areas, but not for more easily traded goods. We next explore the consequences of this rise in selected food prices for nonbeneficiary households and, especially, children.

# _Indirect Expenditure and Consumption Effects_

Table 4 reports results that parallel those in Table 1, but now contrasts nonbeneficiary households in treated and control villages, and presents the program impacts on household food budget share as well as whether the household reported feeding eggs, meat, and fish to children ages 6 to 60 months. For nonbeneficiary households in treated villages, food expenditure as a share

> 23 The full results from this regression are not reported here but are available from the authors upon request. 24 While our model shows that a transportation cost-induced wedge may be sustained indefinitely in areas where markets are not perfectly integrated, chicken ownership does not at first glance appear to be difficult to scale up.  The question thus arises as to why supply, particularly of eggs, does not respond to a greater degree to the price increase. Morris, Beesabathuni, and Headey (2018) discuss several aspects of egg production in developing countries that may shed light on this puzzle. First, they note that 96 percent of all egg production in the world happens “intensively”, i.e. in industrial settings and not “extensively”, i.e. by home producers, perhaps explaining why we do not observe more chicken ownership in our data. They also document that eggs tend to be unavailable and expensive, particularly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but also in less wealthy parts of East Asia. Only a few countries, largely in sub-Saharan Africa, have high levels of poultry ownership. Then, they use data from South Asia and sub-Saharan African to calibrate a model and estimate scenarios of price impacts of changes in egg production. They find that egg prices (albeit nationally) largely respond to changes in industrial production rather than home production. Finally, they document that the Philippines has one of the lowest levels of per-person egg availability globally and that it has developed a “very large-scale industrial egg production industry” in recent years (p. 8).

21