metadata: authors: 0: author: Esper,Hisham
1: author: Krishnan,Nandini
2: author: Wieser,Christina
count: Afghanistan
docna: 0: docna: More Is Better : Evaluating the Impact of a
            Variation in Cash Assistance on the Reintegration Outcomes
            of Returning Afghan Refugees
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Disability,Economic Assistance,Services & Transfers to Poor,Access of Poor to Social Services,Gender and Economic Policy,Economics and Gender,Gender and Economics,Gender and Poverty,Educational Sciences,Transport Services,Health Care Services Industry
teratopic: Social Protections and Labor,Poverty Reduction,Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Education,Transport,Industry,Gender
abstracts: cdata!: This paper studies the effect of a
            change in the amount of cash assistance provided to Afghan
            refugees returning from Pakistan on household outcomes
            post-return. Using a regression discontinuity design, it
            measures the impact of a large exogenous change in cash
            assistance amounts on post-return outcomes in a
            quasi-experimental setting. Administrative data and
            post-return monitoring data suggest that more than 16 months
            after their return, returnees who received a larger cash
            allowance of $350 per returnee&#x2014;equivalent to 2.5
            times the average annual pre-return annual
            income&#x2014;were better off than those who received a
            smaller cash allowance of $150. Recipients of the $350 cash
            assistance were more likely to invest in durable assets,
            such as a house (17 percentage point difference); recipients
            of the $150 cash allowance were more likely to use the
            assistance for immediate food consumption needs (40
            percentage point difference). Households that received $350
            per returnee were significantly more likely to have been
            issued legal documentation for their household members. In
            line with the literature on cash assistance, the change in
            cash assistance had no effect on post-return employment
            outcomes. The findings provide new evidence on the effects
            of unconditional cash transfers on refugee reintegration and
            show that larger cash transfer programs can have a large and
            long-term impact following refugees&#x2019; return.
geo_reg_key: 517198,517191,517212
repnme: repnme: More Is Better : Evaluating the Impact of a
            Variation in Cash Assistance on the Reintegration Outcomes
            of Returning Afghan Refugees
display_title: More Is Better : Evaluating the
            Impact of a Variation in Cash Assistance on the
            Reintegration Outcomes of Returning Afghan Refugees
listing_relative_url: /research/2022/01/33700524/more-better-evaluating-impact-variation-cash-assistance-reintegration-outcomes-returning-afghan-refugees
topicv3: Female-Headed Households m1326228 916,Transport m1326661 135,Education m1327048 470,Cash Transfers m1327437 1608,Health m1504661 3480
publishtoextweb_dt: 2022-01-10T00:00:00Z
dois: 10.1596/1813-9450-9897
historic_topic: Social Protections and Labor,Poverty Reduction,Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Education,Transport,Industry,Gender
origu: EFI-SAR-POV-Poverty and Equity (ESAPV)
no_of_pages: 23
author_keys: 0: author_key: 1691740
1: author_key: 806943
2: author_key: 1297316
model_extractions: Policy Research Working Paper 9897

# More Is Better

Evaluating the Impact of a Variation in Cash Assistance on the Reintegration Outcomes of Returning Afghan Refugees _Hisham Esper Nandini Krishnan Christina Wieser_ Poverty and Equity Global Practice January 2022
Policy Research Working Paper 9897

# **Abstract**

This paper studies the effect of a change in the amount of cash assistance provided to Afghan refugees returning from Pakistan on household outcomes post-return. Using a regression discontinuity design, it measures the impact of a large exogenous change in cash assistance amounts on post-return outcomes in a quasi-experimental setting. Administrative data and post-return monitoring data suggest that more than 16 months after their return, returnees who received a larger cash allowance of $350 per returnee— equivalent to 2.5 times the average annual pre-return annual income—were better off than those who received a smaller cash allowance of $150. Recipients of the $350 cash assistance were more likely to invest in durable assets, such as a house (17 percentage point difference); recipients of the $150 cash allowance were more likely to use the assistance for immediate food consumption needs (40 percentage point difference). Households that received $350 per returnee were significantly more likely to have been issued legal documentation for their household members. In line with the literature on cash assistance, the change in cash assistance had no effect on post-return employment outcomes. The findings provide new evidence on the effects of unconditional cash transfers on refugee reintegration and show that larger cash transfer programs can have a large and long-term impact following refugees’ return.

This paper is a product of the Poverty and Equity Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at nkrishnan@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **More Is Better: Evaluating the Impact of a Variation in Cash Assistance on the Reintegration Outcomes of Returning Afghan Refugees**

_Hisham Esper, Nandini Krishnan, and Christina Wieser_ _<mark>JEL Classification: C90, O12, O15, 019, R23</mark>_ _<mark>Keywords: Migration, Refugees, Cash Assistance, Quasi-Experiment</mark>_ _<mark>This work is part of the program “Building the Evidence on Protracted Forced Displacement: A Multi-Stakeholder Partnership''. The program is funded by UK aid from the United Kingdom's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), it is managed by the World Bank Group (WBG) and was established in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The scope of the program is to expand the global knowledge on forced displacement by funding quality research and disseminating results for the use of practitioners and policy makers. This work does not necessarily reflect the views of FCDO, the WBG or UNHCR.</mark>_
# **Introduction and Program Description**

Afghan refugees form one of the largest protracted refugee populations in the world, with many Afghans having lived in exile for decades. Despite the ongoing conflict, roughly 2.4 million displaced Afghans have returned to Afghanistan since 2014, including over half a million registered refugees who returned under the voluntary return program of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which provided them with immediate humanitarian assistance. More than 370,000 Afghan refugees returned to Afghanistan in 2016 alone. Between 2016 and 2018, UNHCR assisted more than 458,000 documented Afghan refugees who returned from Pakistan.<sup>1</sup> The majority of refugees arrived at the Afghan border without any assets or income-generating means. A significant share of returnees were women accompanied by young children, which complicated reintegration.

The majority of Afghan refugees moved to Pakistan during the Soviet invasion in 1979–80, according to the Population Profiling Verification and Response (PPVR) survey conducted in 2011. The protracted nature of the Afghan refugee situation, the large return wave since 2016, ongoing conflict, low economic growth, and weak job creation raise questions about how best to absorb and reintegrate the large number of returnees.

As a response to these challenges, UNHCR offers returning refugees under their mandate cash assistance for reintegration and transportation. Returnees receive two types of cash assistance. First, UNHCR pays transportation assistance, based on the distance traveled and the province of origin. The median transportation assistance received by Afghan returnees in our sample was $45 per returnee. Second, returnees receive reintegration assistance.

Between July 2016 and March 2017, UNHCR increased its reintegration assistance amount from $150 per returnee to $350 per returnee because of the increased needs of returning Afghan refugees and the need to ensure dignified reintegration. The amount of assistance was returned to $150 per returnee in April 2017. The amount of reintegration assistance is thus determined purely by the timing of return, with returnees returning between July 2016 and March 2017 receiving $350 per returnee and those returning before July 2016 or after March 2017 receiving $150 per returnee. We therefore estimate the total assistance received as either $200 or $400 per returnee.

The amount of assistance provided to refugees returning to Afghanistan is large compared with their income (figure 1). The one-time $350 per capita reintegration assistance was equivalent to 60 percent of the annual GDP per capita of Afghans living in Afghanistan ($591) (ALCS 2017). Households that received $350 per returning household member received approximately 2.5 times their annual income upon return; households that received $150 per household member received 1.2 times their annual income.

> 1 More than 380,000 undocumented refugees also returned from Pakistan to Afghanistan in 2016–18, according to annual reports of the International Organization for Migration and UNHCR.

2
<!-- Start of picture text --> S=) I I I<br>o | Treatment | Control |<br>oIII<br>S<br>& 1 I I<br>II I<br>S s !1!1!I<br>NIII<br>II I<br>ag I I I<br>QS I I I<br>Se 1 \ !<br>SsS III |I<br>_III<br>I<br>I I<br>Ss©II| I<br>II<br>I I I<br>8 I I I<br>-10 -5 Month/Yearfe) 5 10<br>——®— Household Annual Income —®— Total Household Assistance<br><!-- End of picture text -->
Covarrubias, <mark>Davis, and Winters (2012) s</mark> tudy the effectiveness of the Malawi social cash transfer scheme on the economic productivity of recipient households. They find that the program led to investments in agricultural assets and livestock, reductions in low-skilled labor participation, and a reduction in the likelihood of child labor.

Another study on the effectiveness of UCTs in Malawi finds that unconditional cash transfers led to a 23 percent increase in annual per capita household consumption by beneficiaries and that beneficiary households were able to invest the UCT in productive income-generating activities (Abdoulayi and others 2017). Access to health care was 12 percentage points higher for UCT recipients than nonrecipients, and school participation was higher at all ages.

Banerjee and others (2017) analyze the results of seven randomized trials of cash transfers across six countries.<sup>2</sup> They find no evidence that the programs affected the propensity to work, or the number of hours worked by either men or women.

The effects of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) on educational outcomes for children have been rigorously evaluated in recent years (Schultz 2004; de Janvry and others 2006; Filmer and Schady 2011). There is also a large body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of UCTs in increasing schooling, reducing child labor, and improvements in health and nutrition (Duflo 2003; Case, Hosegood, and Lund 2005; Edmonds 2006; Edmonds and Schady 2012).

To compare CCT and UCT transfers, Baird, <mark>McIntosh, and Özler</mark> (2011) conducted an experiment in Malawi that randomly assigned households to either conditional or unconditional cash assistance. The conditional transfer was based on girls’ school attendance. The study finds that UCTs were more effective in preventing early marriage among girls (27 percent lower than the no-cash group) and pregnancy (44 percent lower). CCTs had no effect on these long-term outcomes, although they were more effective in increasing school attendance.

Most of the evidence on the effectiveness of UCTs comes from Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that, like Afghanistan, is characterized by generalized high levels of poverty and weak institutional capacity in administering CCTs. A difference-in-differences evaluation of a cash transfer program for orphans and vulnerable children in Kenya reveals that that cash transfer program had positive impacts on expenditure on health and food and decreased the elasticity of consumption of inferior goods such as alcohol and tobacco (Kenya CT-OVC Evaluation Team 2012). In a second paper evaluating the same UCT program, the authors find significant impacts (7.8 percentage points) on enrollment of children 12 and older but no impacts on younger children. The finding that cash transfers had no impact on the enrollment of children under 12 could be related to the fact that primary (but not secondary) education is free in Kenya.

The literature on the effectiveness of assisting return migrants to Afghanistan includes an evaluation of a shelter assistance program implemented by UNHCR. UNHCR provided post-return shelter assistance to Afghans between 2009 and 2011. Loschmann, <mark>Parsons, and Siegel</mark> (2005) use a multidimensional poverty index comprising four dimensions: economic welfare, health, education, and basic services. To address selection bias, they use a propensity score matching approach. They estimate that the shelter assistance

> 2 The cash transfer programs studied were implemented in Honduras, Indonesia, Morocco, Mexico (two programs), Nicaragua, and the Philippines.

4
<!-- Start of picture text --> oS . .<br>=!1<br>~! 1<br>o I I<br>Ss ' '<br>oe I 1<br>Lo | I<br>es ! 1<br>So<br>= Ss I I<br>o F }<br>= 1 I!<br>283 Il I<br>es<br>—S 1 1<br>#R I I<br>es I! I1<br>S I |<br>! 1<br>Oo —— —<br>2016m1 2017m1 2018m1 2019m1<br>Month/Year<br>MEE total ODR MEE total UNHCR<br>MEE total Cashfirm<br><!-- End of picture text -->
and district of residence, the province of origin, and reasons for settling in the location. We also included information on the residence of returnees, harmonized across the three data source, including the type, size, and ownership status of the dwelling. The three data sources include information on income, employment, education (for children), food security, and access to health services. These variables allow us to compare living standards in the treatment and control groups.

The cutoff criterion for the reintegration assistance was strictly determined in April 2017.<sup>3</sup> Although the policy change was implemented that month, we have significant data on returnees only starting the following month (May 2017).

Because of harsh winter conditions, UNHCR temporary suspended its voluntary repatriation program from Pakistan between December and March 2017. The process of returns from the Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries continued throughout the year. Only 215 households were registered in the VRF between December 2016 and March 2017, representing 0.2 percent of the 89,235 total individual returns between 2016 and 2017.

# **_Second Round of Data Collection_**

Between March and May of 2020, the study team attempted to recontact a sample of 2016–17 returnees from Pakistan to (a) identify whether the impact of reintegration assistance remained significant more than three years post-return and (b) use the same survey tool on returnees who could be part of the regression discontinuity design (RDD) sample. The data collection exercise used returnee phone numbers from UNHCR to conduct follow-up data collection post-return.

Most phone numbers were provided to UNHCR shortly after the returnees crossed the border from Pakistan enroute to resettle in Afghanistan. Because returnees move and change phone numbers as they resettle in Afghanistan, we were able to reach only 16.1 percent of the database of returnee phone numbers and only 6 percent of the returnee population eligible for the study (per their return date). Given this high rate of attrition and the small size of the second-round sample, we use the 2020 data to complement findings from the UNHCR post-return monitoring data.

# **Limitations of the Study**

There are limitations in analyzing results from three data sources, related to differences in questions or levels of aggregation. For example, the sources measure income differently, with the ODR data measuring household income with a categorical variable (five categories) ranging from AFA 3,000 to more than AFA 10,000 and the private firm data measuring the exact household income. The exact measurement of income led to a nonresponse of 35 percent. The minimum possible household income collected by ODR was AFA 3,000 (about $30 using current exchange rates).

Another limitation is the number of months between the sample of $350 recipients and the sample of returnees who received $150. Although the cash assistance was reduced in April 2017, the last surveyed refugees to return before the policy change returned in November 2016 and the first surveyed returnees

> 3 Strict discontinuity refers to a design in which there is a single binary treatment, the assignment variable perfectly predicts the receipt of the treatment, and the probability of treatment jumps from 0 to 1 when the variable crosses a certain threshold. Fuzzy discontinuity refers to a design in which there is imperfect compliance of the rule, meaning that the variable partly crosses a cutoff point, allowing for a smaller jump in the probability of assignment to the treatment at the threshold (not necessarily a sharp 0 to 1 jump).

6
post-policy change arrived in May 2017. This time difference could allow for secular time trends to be misattributed to the policy change, although this issue may not be significant, given the largely exogenous nature of the decision to return from Pakistan.

# **Study Design and Methods**

# **_Study Design_**

This evaluation relies on an unintended quasi-experimental policy change corresponding to a variation in the amount of reintegration cash assistance to returning Afghan refugees. The increase in the cash transfer amount (to $350 per returnee) was in place for only a short time up to April 2017, and the reduction of cash assistance amount to $150 per returnee in April 2017 was unexpected and unanticipated.

We estimate the effect of the change in cash assistance on post-return integration outcomes. The estimation strategy adopted is a sharp regression discontinuity, as the treatment status, (the amount of reintegration assistance received), is a deterministic and discontinuous function of the date of the ii return variable<sup>4</sup> , , such that DD ii xx = �<sup>$350 if xxii< April 2017</sup> ≥April 2017 ii We apply a strict regressions discontinuity design (RDD), which establishes the causality based on the DD ii $150 if xx We apply a strict regressions discontinuity design (RDD), which establishes the causality based on the assumption that differences between returnee outcomes in a short enough timeframe (before and after April 2017) are attributed to the reduction of cash assistance from $350 to $150 per returning household member.<sup>5</sup> An important assumption of an RDD is the arbitrary nature of the cutoff, which creates a quasirandom treatment assignment around it.

We applied a nonparametric estimation strategy to establish a causal estimate of the effect of cash assistance on reintegration outcomes by estimating treatment effects around the cutoff month when cash assistance was decreased from $350 to $150 per returning household member. This local linear regression approach allows slopes to vary on either side of the cutoff by imposing an interaction term between the running variable (day of return) and the treatment indicator variable. This approach ensures that we do not mistake a trend as a difference attributable to treatment by simply comparing means on either side of the cutoff.

> 4 The reintegration assistance was $150 per returning household member between January 2016 and June 2016. Reintegration assistance was increased in July 2017 to $350 per returning household member and later reduced to $150 in April 2017.

> 5 In a small “neighborhood” to the either side of the cutoff, the average treatment effect does not necessarily rely on the correct specification of the model for _E[Y0i|xi]._

7
where is the reintegration outcome of interest (education, house ownership, etc.) and indicates whether the household received a reduction in assistance ( = 1 is the reduction of assistance from $350 ii ii yy DD to $150). The variable is the number of days before or after the change in reintegration assistance ii DD (bandwidth). Selection of was conducted using the data-driven mean-squared error-reducing strategy, ii zz proposed by Calonico, <mark>Cattaneo, and Titiunik</mark> (2014). ii zz

# **_Baseline Differences in Treatment and Control Groups_**

We observe some differences in observable characteristics of returnees according to the time of return and the amount of reintegration assistance received. Individuals who returned after the reduction of reintegration assistance to $150 per individual earned, on average, about 200 Pakistani rupees (about $1.92) less per person per month than those who were given $350. This difference is miniscule compared with the size of the reintegration assistance.

We performed balance tests to examine differences in baseline characteristics between the potential treatment and control groups. Table 1 presents the results of a balance test to examine differences between the treatment and control groups around the 55.3-day average bandwidth.<sup>6</sup> The results shows that the differences in baseline characteristics are largest for household size, age of household head upon return, and probability of uneducated household head, which we control for in the regression model. Differences in baseline per capita income are insignificant.

**Table 1 Balance test of baseline characteristics of control and treatment groups within bandwidth of 55.3 days**

||**_(1)_**<br>_$350_|**_(2)_**<br>_$150_||_(1) versus_|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**_Variable_**|_allowance_|_allowance_|_Overall_|_(2)_|_p-value_|_N_|
|Transport**allowance**per<br>capita (US dollars)|48.889|45.820|46.575|3.069***|0.000|2,522|
||(0.571)|(0.295)|(0.265)|(0.612)|||
|Household per capita income<br>(PRe)|1,114.420|1,026.595|1,048.186|87.825|0.389|2,522|
||(88.985)|(50.443)|(43.881)|(101.917)|||
|Household size (indicated on<br>**voluntary repatriation form)**|5.481|4.585|4.805|0.896***|0.000|2,522|
||(0.126)|(0.068)|(0.060)|(0.139)|||
|Household head gender (0:<br>Female, 1: Male)|0.785|0.721|0.737|0.065***|0.002|2,519|
||(0.016)|(0.010)|(0.009)|(0.020)|||
|Age of household head|39.376|36.781|37.420|2.595***|0.001|2,519|
||(0.662)|(0.372)|(0.325)|(0.752)|||
|Uneducated|0.785|0.657|0.688|0.129***|0.000|2,519|
||(0.016)|(0.011)|(0.009)|(0.021)|||

> 6 The selection of bandwidth was conducted using the mean-squared error-reducing approach of the rdrobust package on Stata.

8
<!-- Start of picture text --> !<br>I<br>~ \<br>g H<br>Bu e*%e'<br>Gefeo ° e ie<br>eo e e? °<br>2 ° H ° e °<br>23 '! %e °<br>re)2 e 11 e nd e<br>s+ !<br>i<br>-10 fe} run var 10 20<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> s 1<br>Ss '<br>38es C s 1\<br>p=<br>% °<br>2Es !H ° e ove°<br>23s i @ ee<br>3 -.. le e<br>g 11 ° 2<br>Ss> s Ii ° e<br>s<br><= I<br>Ssqi =10 oO' run var 10 20<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> e 2 !<br>4%= a e e e<br>=xs !1 e e e e e e<br>rs 1 ee e ° H bd ce e e<br>5< °<br>oO i<br><TM3~ IH<br>{<br>'<br>3 H<br>-10 te) run var 10 20<br>@ avg_gender ———_ Fitted values<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> oO 1<br>) I1<br>8 e I1 e<br>3TMs i}<br>38a e Ii e e.?e s<br>5 . o7.0°<br>oR 2 1 e.<br>2e5 . ecI<br>2 '<br>1<br>N '<br>-10 ° run var 10 20<br>@ avg_no_educ ————_ Fitted values<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Q H<br>|<br>=q|1<br>ey& I e<br>< ° ry °<br>325s a e © 6 !| e e<br>Zo~ ee CeeI é e<br>e | e<br>i e<br>/nN H 2 e<br>I °<br>© !<br>-10 oO 10 20<br>run var<br>@ avg_age ———— Fitted values<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> 5 ]<br>E |<br>gs \1<br>8<br>oa2s ' e<br>&38 ° I e<br>#3, e°°e 1% 6 e<br>=e » 2% o.? e<br>&83 s e<br>SBor ei\<br>So \<br>Sa '<br>ara I<br>eS \<br>3 1<br>-10 fo} 10 20<br>run var<br>@ avg_pak_arrival_year ———_ Fitted values<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **Descriptive Statistics**

# **_Consumption and Investment Choices by Reintegration Amount_**

We start by examining the relationship between the reintegration amounts and the consumption bundle that the population of returning refugees spent the assistance on. Households in the treatment group were more likely to use the reintegration assistance to purchase long-term assets, and households in the control group were more likely to purchase consumption goods (table 2). Almost half of returnees in the control group spent more than half of their reintegration assistance on food, compared with only 17 percent in the treatment group. Households in the treatment group were more likely to purchase land (21 percent) than households in the control group (7 percent). Returnees in the treatment group were also more likely to use it to pay for transportation and rent.

**Table 2 Items on which returnees spent their assistance (percent of total)**

|Item|$350per returnee|$150per returnee|
|---|---|---|
|Land|21.0|6.2|
|Rent|20.1|7.8|
|Transportation|20.0|7.4|
|Food|16.9|46.2|
|Shelter|9.9|7.1|
|Health|6.7|5.4|
|Debt|5.3|5.2|
|None|0.2|14.6|

The 2020 follow-up survey asked returnees to rank the usefulness of UNHCR reintegration cash assistance for multiple spending items related to reintegration. The largest difference between the $350 and $150 per returnee recipients was their assessment of the usefulness of the assistance for purchasing land and building a house (table 3).

**Table 3 Returnees’ assessment of usefulness of UNHCR reintegration assistance for different purposes**

||_Recipients of $350 per returnee_<br>|_Recipients of $150 per retur_<br>|_nee_<br>|
|---|---|---|---|
|_Possible use of assistance_|_allowance_|_allowance_|_Difference_|
|Purchase land|2.17|1.53|0.63|
|Build house|2.09|1.74|0.35|
|Return to province of origin|3.08|2.80|0.28|
|Pay rent|3.04|2.84|0.20|
|Pay expenses associated with an<br>illness|1.73|1.62|0.11|
|Pay loan|1.78|1.67|0.11|
|Open business|1.44|1.35|0.08|
|Purchase a house|1.29|1.24|0.05|
|Pay for a child’s schooling|1.48|1.44|0.03|
|Acquire legal documentation<br>(_tazkira_)|1.55|1.63|–0.08|
|Ret. to desired province|2.24|2.59|–0.35|

_Note_ : Ratings are from 0 to 10.

10
<!-- Start of picture text --> oo<br>©<br>cab]<br>on<br>=<br>[=]<br>cs,<br>=<br>=<br>Oo<br>m~<br>o<br>-100 -50 0 50 100<br>Sample average within bin ————_ Polynomial fit of order 1<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Did you utilize UNHCR assistance to purchase housing?<br>N<br>0.18<br>ite)<br>=<br>x<br>0,08<br>ito)<br>°<br>HB $350 Jult6-Apr17 $150 Apr-Aug17<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Did you utilize UNHCR assistance to rent housing?<br>N<br>t<br>¢<br>© 0.38<br>%<br>0.36<br>©<br>%<br>+<br>%<br>HM $350 Jult6-Apri7 MM $150 Apr-Aug17<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> co<br>@<br>pw]<br>5<br>s 2<br>x<br>x<br>a=]<br>2<br>ra) —<br>j=<br>=<br>wi<br>TM<br>=<br>-50 0 50<br>Sample average within bin ———_ Polynomial fit of order 1<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 2020 Household Monthly Income ° 2019 Household Monthly Income<br>g 8<br>Pe)9oO 2=<br>s 8093.05 S<br>g g<br>oO -<br>z Zz 9590.72<br><<<br>woXN87528.91 8oaf=}<br>8514.11<br>i=}fo} °<br>R 3<br><!-- End of picture text --> HM $350 Jul16-Apr17 H- $150 Apr-Aug17 HM «$350 Jul16-Apr17 M.- $150 Apr-Aug17
<!-- Start of picture text --> ©<br>0.54<br>5<br>3 0.40<br>S,=|<br>re==!oOSssBa<br>° Female Headed Male Headed<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> <2<br>0.67<br>©<br>25 0.57<br>£=bal<br>=|so=8s=<br>=§<br>“<br>o Female Headed Male Headed<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> 12<br>0.46<br>sS = 0.36<br>3SI<br>3Doo<br>zz<br>s<br>S a<br>52=<br>o Female Headed Male Headed<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> oy<br>0.27<br>B<br>3oa 0.20<br>ge3<br>=<br>,<br>5<br>s<br>3Ss5fo=<br>° Female Headed Male Headed<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> _ ee ee<br>o. e<br>3 -? ee. e . e<br>Be . s_* . = e<br>—ee<br>=. e . e*e Je e o °<br>N©°<br>2<br>ee<br>o oe e<br>-50 fe} 50<br>e Sample average within bin ————- Polynomial fit of order 1<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text -->
- ee e<br>«© e<br>ee<br>xBao)© .%ee ee e e. eo? . e e . °<br>Noa e had e<br>= oe PS . . . .o ee<br>aL e . . e oe<br>=t e e<br><x ee e e e<br>e<br>N e<br>oO e eo e<br>-40 -20 0 20 40<br>© Sample average within bin ———_ Polynomial fit of order 1<br><!-- End of picture text -->
Households that received $350 in a small neighborhood of the cutoff were 17 percent points more likely to own a house, 29.8 percent points more likely to have been issued legal documentation for their household, and 40.4 percent points less likely to have spent more than half their reintegration assistance on food (table 5).

## **Table 5 Nonparametric regression discontinuity design estimate of impact of reducing UNHCR cash assistance from $350 to $150 per household member**

|_item_|_(1)_<br>_Own house_|_(2)_<br>_Employed_<br>_household_<br>_Member_|_(3)_<br>_All household_<br>_members_<br>_have_tazkira|_(4)_<br>_Spent most of_<br>_the assistance_<br>_onfood_|_(5)_<br>_All children_<br>_in school_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Cash amount|–0.170***|0.076|–0.298***|0.404***|-0.010|
|(1=$150, 2=$300)|(0.054)|(0.095)|(0.109)|(0.107)|(0.109)|
|Observations|4,302|4,302|4,299|2,979|2,184|
|Kernel type|Triangular|Triangular|Triangular|Triangular|Triangular|
|BW type|MSERD|MSERD|MSERD|MSERD|MSERD|
|Observations left|956|610|371|358|456|
|Observations right|2110|1897|1818|571|958|
|Days on each side|74.81|54.90|42.86|42.26|61.80|
|Conventional_p_-value|0.00169|0.423|0.00620|0.000152|0.929|
|Order Loc. Poly. (p)|1|1|1|1|1|
|Order bias (q)|2|2|2|2|2|
|Covariates|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|

_Note_ : Robust standard errors are in parentheses. *** _p_ < 0.01, ** _p_ < 0.05, * _p_ <0.1.

We find no significant effect of change in cash assistance on the likelihood of having an employed household member approximately 16 months after receiving the grant. The impact on the likelihood of enrolling children in school also becomes insignificant after controlling for confounding factors in the neighborhood of a 62-day bandwidth.

# **Robustness Test: Parametric Regression Discontinuity Design Model**

To ensure the robustness of results, we estimate the effects using a parametric strategy in which all returnee household-level observations are used. While the local linear regression approach is more likely to be unbiased in terms of estimating average treatment effects, the parametric estimation strategy, by using all available observations, provides a more precise estimate of treatment effects. The robustness check uses the following parametric model: (3) where yyii is the reintegration outcome of interest (education, house ownership, etc.); = αα+ ββDDii + ff(xxii ) + εεii indicates whether the household received a reduction in assistance ( = 1 is the reduction of assistance from $350 to $150); ii ii and yy ) is a flexible function of the running variable, the week of return (centered on zero at the cutoff). DD ii If the function is correctly specified, we can interpret DD as the average treatment effect on the treated ii ff(xx ff ββ 18
(ATT). We control for differences in pre-return income, household head age, gender, education, and household size, as the household head was slightly older and the household size slightly larger in the treatment group (see table 1). To understand whether ) should take a linear or quadratic form, we run regressions with both the day of return ( ) and the same model using an and 2 term, in order to look for an inflection point ii ff(xx and test whether the relationship between the outcome variables and the day of return is indeed ii ii ii xx xx xx nonlinear. After testing the functional form of ) , we find that the additional quadratic terms are not significant and therefore opt for a linear form for the day of return.<sup>11</sup> ii ff(xx After controlling for a set of household and individual demographic factors, we find that the results described in section 5 still hold. Households in the treatment group were 25 percentage points more likely to own a house, 23 percentage points more likely to have been issued _tazkira_ , and 24 percentage points less likely to have spent most of the cash assistance on food than households in the control group (table 6). Differences between the nonparametric model and the linear parametric model are particularly pertinent regarding education. In section 5, we did not find any impact of cash assistance on children’s school enrollment. In contrast, the parametric model suggests that households in the treatment group were 14 percent points more likely to enroll all their children in school than households in the control group.

# **Table 5 Results of linear parametric model on effect of UNCHR cash assistance on reintegration outcomes**

|_Item_|(1)<br>_Own house_|(2)<br>_Household_<br>_member_<br>_employed_|(3)<br>_Household_<br>_has_tazkira|(4)<br>_All children in_<br>_school_|(5)<br>_Spent most of_<br>_the assistance_<br>_onfood_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Cash amount|–0.245***|0.065***|–0.226***|–0.144***|0.238***|
|(1=$150, 0=$300)|(0.021)|(0.023)|(0.022)|(0.032)|(0.027)|
|Day of return|0.000|–0.000|0.001***|–0.000*|0.000**|
||(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|
|Transportation per capita|0.002***|–0.001*|–0.003***|–0.001*|0.001**|
||(0.000)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|
|Household per capita Income||||||
|(RS)|–0.000|0.000**|0.000**|–0.000|–0.000|
||(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|
|Household size (per||||||
|Voluntary Repatriation Form)|0.004*|0.007**|0.003|0.005|–0.005|
||(0.002)|(0.003)|(0.003)|(0.005)|(0.003)|
|Household head gender|0.057***|0.079***|0.057***|0.076***|–0.086***|
|(0 = Female, 1 =Male)|(0.015)|(0.019)|(0.018)|(0.028)|(0.021)|

> 11 We conducted a joint _F_ -test of significance of the quadratic term and predicted the post-estimation margins, in order to test for an inflection point or curvature of the week of return variable. Results are available upon request.

19
|Household head age at time<br>of follow-up|–0.001|–0.002***|0.002***|–0.000|0.001|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.001)|(0.001)|
|Household head uneducated|0.037***|–0.005|–0.049***|–0.031|–0.018|
||(0.014)|(0.017)|(0.017)|(0.026)|(0.020)|
|Constant|0.256***|0.474***|0.862***|0.560***|0.217***|
||(0.034)|(0.041)|(0.038)|(0.061)|(0.041)|
|Observations|4,302|4,302|4,300|2,184|2,979|
|_R_-squared|0.085|0.012|0.045|0.038|0.102|
|Functional form|Linear|Linear|Linear|Linear|Linear|

_Note_ : Robust standard errors are in parentheses. *** _p_ < 0.01, ** _p_ < 0.05, * _p_ <0.1.

# **References**

- <mark>Abdoulayi, S., G. Angeles, C. Barrington, K. Brugh, S. Handa, K. Kilburn, A. Molotsky, F. Otchere, S. Zietz, M. Tsoka, P. Mvula, J.D. Hoop, T. Palermo, and A. Peterman. 2017.</mark> _<mark>Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Unconditional Social Cash Transfer Programme for The Ultra Poor in Malawi</mark>_ <mark>. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).</mark>

- <mark>Aguero, Jorge, Michael Carter, and Ingrid Woolard. 2006. “The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Nutrition: The South African Child Support Grant." Working Paper 39, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Brasilia.</mark>

Central Statistics Organization. 2018. _Afghanistan Living Conditions Survey 2016–17._ Kabul.

<mark>Baird, Sarah, Craig McIntosh, and Berk Özler. 2011. “Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment.”</mark> _<mark>Quarterly Journal of Economics</mark>_ <mark>126(4): 1709–53.</mark>

- Banerjee, Abhijit V., Rema Hanna, Gabriel E. Kreindler, and Benjamin A. Olken. 2017.“Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs.” _World Bank Research Observer_ 32(2): 155–84.

- <mark>Calonico, S., M.D. Cattaneo, and R. Titiunik. 2014. “Robust Nonparametric Confidence Intervals for Regression-Discontinuity Designs.”</mark> _<mark>Econometrica</mark>_ <mark>82: 2295–326. doi:10.3982/ECTA11757.</mark>

- Case, Anne, Victoria Hosegood, and Frances Lund. 2005. “The Reach and Impact of Child Support Grants: Evidence from KwaZulu-Natal.” _Development Southern Africa_ 22(4): 467–82.

- <mark>Covarrubias, Katia, Benjamin Davis, and Paul Winters. 2012. “From Protection to Production: Productive Impacts of the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme.”</mark> _<mark>Journal of Development Effectiveness</mark>_ <mark>4(1): 50– 77.</mark>

<mark>Davis, Benjamin, Marie Gaarder, Sudhanshu Handa, and Jenn Yablonski. 2012. “Evaluating the Impact of Cash Transfer Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Introduction to the Special Issue.”</mark> _<mark>Journal of Development Effectiveness</mark>_ <mark>4(1): 1–8.</mark> 20
- <mark>De Janvry, Alain, Frederico Finan, Elisabeth Sadoulet, and Renos Vakis. 2006. “Can Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Serve as Safety Nets in Keeping Children at School and from Working When Exposed to Shocks.”</mark> _<mark>Journal of Development economics</mark>_ <mark>79(2): 349–73.</mark>

<mark>DFID (Department for International Development). 2011. “Cash Transfers: Evidence Paper.” London.</mark>

- <mark>Duflo, Esther. 2003. “Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intrahousehold Allocation in South Africa.”</mark> _<mark>World Bank Economic Review</mark>_ <mark>17(1): 1–25.</mark>

- <mark>Edmonds, Eric V. “Child Labor and Schooling Responses to Anticipated Income in South Africa.”</mark> _<mark>Journal of Development Economics</mark>_ <mark>81(2): 386–414.</mark>

- <mark>Filmer, Deon, and Norbert Schady. 2009.</mark> _<mark>School Enrollment, Selection and Test Scores</mark>_ <mark>World Bank, Washington, DC.</mark>

- <mark>———. 2012.“Poverty Alleviation and Child Labor.”</mark> _<mark>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</mark>_ <mark>4(4): 100–24</mark>

- <mark>Haushofer, Johannes, and Jeremy Shapiro. 2016. “The Short-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental Evidence from Kenya.”</mark> _<mark>Quarterly Journal of Economics</mark>_ <mark>131(4): 1973–2042.</mark>

- <mark>Haushofer, Johannes, and Jeremy Shapiro. 2018. “The Long-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Kenya.” Busara Center for Behavioral Economics, Nairobi.</mark>

- Kenya CT-OVC Evaluation Team. 2012. “The impact of Kenya's Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children on human capital.” _Journal of Development Effectiveness_ 4(1): 38–49.

- <mark>Loschmann, Craig, Christopher R. Parsons, and Melissa Siegel. 2015. “Does Shelter Assistance Reduce Poverty in Afghanistan?.”</mark> _<mark>World Development</mark>_ <mark>74: 305–22.</mark>

- <mark>Schultz, T. Paul. 2004. “School Subsidies for the Poor: Evaluating the Mexican Progresa Poverty Program.”</mark> _<mark>Journal of Development Economics</mark>_ <mark>74(1): 199–250.</mark>

<mark>Sen, Amartya. 1999.</mark> _<mark>Development as Freedom.</mark>_ <mark>New York: Alfred Knopf.</mark> 21