Table S2.5: EFFECTS ON RECIPROCITY OF TRANSFERS, BY WEALTH CLASS

||Reciprocity<br>of transfer<br>links|Re<br>ultra<br>poor|ciprocity o<br>other<br>poor|f transfers<br>middle<br>class|with<br>upper<br>class|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|
|Treatment|0.032|0.005|0.069***|0.040|0.049|
||(0.021)|(0.033)|(0.024)|(0.025)|(0.031)|
|Treatment_×_Endline|0.089**|0.079*|0.051|0.094**|0.142***|
||(0.035)|(0.041)|(0.044)|(0.039)|(0.048)|
|Mean in control|0.510|0.627|0.560|0.449|0.267|
|Adjusted R-squared|0.219|0.190|0.208|0.237|0.198|
|Observations|12774|2792|4823|9474|3135|

**Source:** Author’s analysis based on original survey data. **Notes:** The table reports ITT estimates based on specification (2) estimated with OLS. The sample includes observations from ultra-poor households surveyed at the midline and endline surveys. All specifications control for the baseline level of the outcome, survey wave and subdistrict (strata) fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered at the BRAC branch office level (unit of randomization). *** (**) (*) indicates significance at the 1% (5%) (10%) level. The dependent variable in column 1 is the fraction of transfer sources within the village who are also reported as recipients of transfers (of last 12 months’ or food transfers ever) from the respondent’s household. The dependent variables in columns 2 - 5 are the fraction of ultra-poor, other poor, middle class or upper class households (respectivey) who are reported as sources of transfers (food, cash or other) and also reported as recipients of transfers given by the respondent’s household.

Table S2.6: TRANSFERS FROM EMPLOYERS

||Household received<br>transfers from<br>anyemployer|Main female respondent<br>received transfers<br>from an employer|Male head of HH<br>received transfers<br>from an employer|
|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|
|Treatment|-0.044***|-0.040***|-0.015**|
||(0.011)|(0.010)|(0.007)|
|Treatment effect after 4 years|0.011<br>(0.017)|0.010<br>(0.015)|0.004<br>(0.012)|
|Mean in control|0.091|0.081|0.032|
|Adjusted R-squared|0.068|0.059|0.039|
|Observations|13464|13464|7778|
|_P_|_anel B: Sample of wage-_|_workers in all 3 surveys_||
|Treatment|-0.052***|-0.044**|-0.010|
||(0.018)|(0.021)|(0.020)|
|Treatment effect after 4 years|0.023|0.036|-0.019|
||(0.026)|(0.025)|(0.038)|
|Mean in control|0.133|0.138|0.073|
|Adjusted R-squared|0.079|0.071|0.077|
|Observations|6336|4488|1332|

**Source:** Author’s analysis based on original survey data. **Notes:** The table reports ITT estimates based on specification (2) estimated with OLS. The sample includes observations from ultra-poor households surveyed at the midline and endline surveys. All specifications control for the baseline level of the outcome, survey wave and subdistrict (strata) fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered at the BRAC branch office level (unit of randomization). *** (**) (*) indicates significance at the 1% (5%) (10%) level. The dependent variable in column 1 is a dummy variable (DV) equal to 1 if either the main female or the male head of the household had worked (in the last 12 months) for an employer who lives in the same village and is reported as a source of transfers for the household. The dependent variable in column 2 (3) is a DV equal to 1 if the main female respondent (male head of the household) had worked (in the last 12 months) for an employer who lives in the same village and is reported as a source of transfers for the household. In Panel B, the sample is restricted to ultra-poor households where either the main female respondent or the male head of the household had worked for an employer in the 12 months preceding the survey.

16