# **4 Results**

We provide three sets of results. In the first set of results, we analyze the labor response driven by exposure to herder-related violence. We show these results by season (i.e., in the post-planting and post-harvest seasons), estimate differential effects based on previous exposure to herder-related violence, and report results both for the full sample and for sub-samples of men and women. In the second set of results, we further explore the “shadow of violence” mechanism by estimating effects specifically in the survey waves collected after the 2018 spike in violence and within Nigerian states that implemented open grazing bans. Finally, in the third set of results, we examine household consumption patterns, agricultural marketing choices, and non-farm enterprise sales using a cross-sectional subset of our panel data to understand the possible welfare implications of the measured labor responses after exposure to herder-related violence.

## **4.1 Labor Response to Herder-Related Violence**

We first estimate how exposure to herder-related violence influences labor allocation decisions of individuals. As previously mentioned, we analyze three main types of work documented by in the GHS: self-employed, informal work (that is, own-account work or work for a non-farm enterprise run by someone in the household), agricultural work, and work for someone outside the household, including paid, wage work. We consider both outcomes on the extensive (whether they worked in each category at all in the last week) and intensive margin (how many hours they worked) for each type of work. One specific caveat applies: due to the fact that the majority of HRV incidents immediately precede and occur in the planting period, and because the measures of hours worked were only reported from 2015 onward, we do not observe a satisfactorily high number of observations for specification (2) for the intensive margin in the post-harvest period. As a result, we only report intensive-margin estimates for the post-planting period. The total number of hours worked is also presented as a key outcome variable.

We initially consider our baseline specification, as given in equation (1), that is one that does not differentiate by other, recent violence exposure. The time window is varied between one, three, and six months; these results are given in the Appendix (Figures A8–A14) and do not give any salient reason to favor a longer time window. Rather, we adopt a preferred specification with the narrowest time window of _t_<sup>_′_</sup> = 1 month, as it presents the most acute measurement of violence exposure. But, also, such a narrow time window also lends itself to the inclusion of the interaction term as in in equation (2), where acute violence exposure ( _Viet′_ =1) is interacted with other, recent exposure ( _PVie−t′_ =6), where the latter term takes a value of one if an individual was within 10 km. of an herder-related violence event in the six months prior (exclusive of the last month).<sup>36</sup> Given that our choice of the narrow time window of 1 month is combined with a narrow distance window, we also extend the distance window to 20 and 30

> 36Though the description of the term _PVie−t′_ =6 may be contorted at times, an example makes the logic plain. That is, consider an individual interviewed on October 1st of a given year. The term _Viet′_ =1 is an indicator term (0 _,_ 1) of violence exposure from September 1 to 30. The reference time window for _PVie−t′_ =6 for this person is the period April 1 to August 31, i.e., the five months preceding September, in this case.

16