Table 3: Lagged dependent variable model - Aggregate consumption _Dependent variable:_ ∆ _Log total consumption per AE in 2010_

||_Di_cros|s-check|_Di_incl.|matches|All|_Di_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|_Ex-combatant return in HH_|||||||
|CNDD+factions (_R_<sup>_CNDD_+</sup><br>_i_<br>)|0.128|0.066|0.131|0.068|0.280|0.193|
||(0.144)|(0.144)|(0.144)|(0.143)|(0.173)|(0.165)|
|FNL factions (_R_<sup>_FNL_</sup><br>_i_<br>)|0.016|-0.016|0.019|-0.016|0.056|0.043|
||(0.215)|(0.200)|(0.215)|(0.201)|(0.256)|(0.241)|
|_Demobilized in HH_|||||||
|CNDD+factions (_D_<sup>_CNDD_+</sup><br>_i_<br>)|-0.610<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.696<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.510<sup>∗∗</sup>|-0.588<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.546<sup>∗∗</sup>|-0.537<sup>∗∗</sup>|
||(0.226)|(0.203)|(0.223)|(0.194)|(0.226)|(0.220)|
|FNL factions (_D_<sup>_FNL_</sup><br>_i_<br>)|0.890<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.862<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.586<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.572<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.322|0.250|
||(0.367)|(0.399)|(0.240)|(0.250)|(0.367)|(0.366)|
|_# of demobilized in the hill (p_|_er 1000 in_|_hab.)_|||||
|CNDD+factions (_S _<sup>_CNDD_+</sup><br>_i_<br>)|-0.013<sup>∗</sup>|-0.015<sup>∗∗</sup>|-0.013<sup>∗</sup>|-0.015<sup>∗∗</sup>|-0.012<sup>∗</sup>|-0.014<sup>∗∗</sup>|
||(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|
|FNL factions (_S _<sup>_FNL_</sup><br>_i_<br>)|0.012<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.013<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|0.012<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.013<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|0.012<sup>∗∗</sup>|0.013<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|
||(0.005)|(0.003)|(0.005)|(0.004)|(0.005)|(0.003)|
|Lagged dependent variable|-0.819<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.849<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.813<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.842<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.821<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|-0.850<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|
||(0.037)|(0.047)|(0.038)|(0.047)|(0.037)|(0.046)|
|Constant|7.574<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|7.787<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|7.511<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|7.705<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|7.585<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|7.792<sup>∗∗∗</sup>|
||(0.360)|(0.507)|(0.366)|(0.500)|(0.352)|(0.502)|
|Controls|No|Yes|No|Yes|No|Yes|
|Province FE|No|Yes|No|Yes|No|Yes|
|Observations|969|958|969|958|969|958|
|_R_<sup>2</sup>|0.368|0.413|0.369|0.413|0.366|0.411|
|F-test (η1 =−β1) _p_-value|.6|.84|.57|.84|.27|.42|
|F-test (η2 =−β2) _p_-value|.48|.66|.81|.96|.6|.48|
|F-test(η3 =−β3) _p_-value|.93|.78|.90|.81|.96|.84|

_Notes:_ Authors’ analysis based on data described in the text. In this table, we compare the three definitions of demobilization, with and without controls and province fixed effects. The table reports OLS estimates. The unit of observation is a household. Total consumption is the sum of consumption expenditures and consumption taken from households’ stocks per adult equivalent. In column (1) and (2), _Di_ only included ex-combatants cross-checked with official registers. In column (3) and (4), _Di_ adds matches. In column (5) and (6), all self-reported ex-combatants are included. Odd-numbered columns do not include control variables or fixed effects; the remaining columns include both. We report the _p_ -values of F-tests assessing whether the coefficients associated with CNDD+ and FNL variables are of similar size, but of opposite sign. Controls include past violence, whether the household head changed, his sex, age, matrimonial status, education, and occupation. Outliers are excluded (as explained in Appendix B.1). Sampling weights are accounted for. Clustered-robust standard errors are in parentheses. * _p_ < 0.10, ** _p_ < 0.05, *** _p_ < 0.01 economic outcomes. This table relies on the second definition of demobilized ex-combatants, namely the one using self-reported information cross-checked with the official demobilization registers and supplemented with matches.<sup>25</sup>

> 25 _DCNDDi_ +2 and _Di_<sup>_FNL_2</sup> in table 2. The use of other definitions leads to similar results. When self-reported information is used, the results are weakened by the presence of noise.

19