the interview. This outcome is not mutually exclusive with labor force participation; the latter is still the case if the respondent had worked for at least an hour or had been actively looking for work. Nonetheless, the results are almost a mirror image of the results on labor force participation. We find a statistically significant positive effect in the OLS, but a negative one in the IV results, though the latter are not statistically significant among the gender-specific samples and are associated with generally lower point estimates, which is to be expected if some respondents spend only a few hours a week on paid work. Overall, these results are in line with our principal findings.

**Table 19: Household Work as the Primary Occupation among Potential Beneficiaries**

|_Variable_|_(1)_<br>_OLS_<br>_All_|_(2)_<br>_OLS_<br>_All_|_(3)_<br>_OLS_<br>_Males_|_(4)_<br>_OLS_<br>_Females_|_(5)_<br>_IV_<br>_All_|_(6)_<br>_IV_<br>_All_|_(7)_<br>_IV_<br>_Males_|_(8)_<br>_IV_<br>_Females_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Colombia Maor|0.017**|0.025***|0.017**|0.017*|−0.059***|−0.041**|−0.026|−0.043|
|y|(0.007)|(0.006)|(0.008)|(0.009)|(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.026)|(0.028)|
|Dd ibl b|0.732***|0.590***|0.484***|0.617***|0.735***|0.588***|0.477***|0.619***|
|epenent varae y year|(0.026)|(0.026)|(0.044)|(0.041)|(0.027)|(0.027)|(0.042)|(0.042)|
|Dd ibl b|0.685***|0.592***|0.498***|0.548***|0.686***|0.597***|0.496***|0.553***|
|epenent varae y area|(0.030)|(0.029)|(0.042)|(0.048)|(0.031)|(0.029)|(0.044)|(0.048)|
|Observations|22,546|22,484|9,472|13,007|22,358|22,297|9,298|12,892|
|R-squared|0.316|0.426|0.100|0.322|0.312|0.423|0.095|0.318|
|Municipalities, number|296|296|293|294|286|286|273|283|
|F|561.8|745.9|30.64|773.5|556.6|729.8|31.29|756.7|
|Partial R-squared|||||0.0890|0.0961|0.102|0.0957|
|Kleinbergen-Paap statistic|||||2705|2493|1370|1635|
|OIR test|||||0.657|0.657|0.657|0.529|
|Endogeneity test|||||0.000136|0.000317|0.0877|0.0266|
|_First stage_|||||||||
||||||0.005|0.006|0.003|0.003|
|Dependent variable by year|||||(0.028)|(0.031)|(0.046)|(0.036)|
|Ddt ribl b r|||||0.005|0.005|0.006|0.005|
|epenen vaae y aea|||||(0.027)|(0.028)|(0.044)|(0.040)|
||||||0.977***|0.993***|0.989***|0.994***|
|Instrument by year|||||(0.019)|(0.020)|(0.027)|(0.025)|

_Note:_ The table illustrates a linear probability model on a dependent variable indicating household work as a primary occupation. The IV specification uses a three-stage procedure for binary treatment variables. Only the OIR test is derived from a two-step procedure. Columns (1) and (5) do not include additional control variables. Standard errors are shown in parenthesis.

A large part of the literature on noncontributory pensions concerns the question of whether such a benefit crowds out the receipt of transfers from other family members or close friends. In table 20, we show the results for our standard estimation on the binary outcome of whether a potential beneficiary receives any monetary transfers from other households or organizations such as nongovernmental organizations or churches. A comparison of the OLS and the IV results shows a clear selection. The elderly who receive such third-party transfers are more likely also to receive the Colombia Mayor benefit. The IV results show a mostly negative effect, which is, however, small in 36