University:
Boston University
Course:
CAS EC 203 | Empirical Economics 1
Academic year:

2023
Views:

213

Pages:

3
Author:

Gironetzbk3n

Figures Figure 1: Treatment Level by Baseline Expenditure Decile Share of Recipient Types by Quintile of HH Expenditure/Capita, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 0 .2 .4 Non−recipients .6 .8 D=1 recipients 1 D=2 recipients Notes: D denotes the number of UCT disbursements d received by enumeration in early 2006 as reported in a module attached to Susenas 2006. The quintile of household expenditures per capita is based on data reported in Susenas 2005. Figure 2: Overlap in Estimated Propensity Scores (Pb) 4 density 3 2 1 0 0 .2 .4 .6 estimated Pr(UCT receipt | X) Recipients .8 1 Non−recipients Notes: Propensity scores obtained from flexible logit regressions (see Table 2). Observations to the left of the dashed vertical line fall within the Crump et al. (2009) optimal overlap region. Figure 3: Staggered Disbursements and Survey Enumeration Date Pr(disbursements=2 | disbursements>0) 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 0−7 8−14 15−21 22−28 29−35 36−42 43−49 50−56 57−63 64−70 71−77 78−86 enumeration date, days since February 2 Notes: The bars represent the share of UCT beneficiary households with two disbursements at the time of being visited by Susenas enumerators in early 2006. The vast majority of enumeration dates fall between February 15 and March 25. Figure 4: Baseline Expenditure Distributions by Treatment Status 1 Treatment D=2 Treatment D=1 Control D=0, Reweighted Control D=0 kernel density .8 .6 .4 .2 0 10 12 14 log household expenditure/capita, 2005 (baseline) 16 Notes: D denotes the number of UCT disbursements d received by early 2006. All distributions estimated using Epanechnikov kernel and a rule-of-thumb bandwidth. The “Control (Reweighted)” observations are adjusted using inverse probability weights (IPW) based on normalized estimated odds of treatment ω b = Pb/(1 − Pb). Density .01 .015 Figure 5: Distribution of Transfers per Capita through early 2006 0 .005 D=1 Recipients D=2 Recipients 0 200 400 Transfers per capita (000s Rp) 600 Notes: D denotes the number of UCT disbursements d received. The transfer amount reported per disbursement is also reported Susenas 2006. Figure 6: Age-Specific Treatment Effects 2005–2006 2005–2007 .1 .2 .02 .1 treatment effect .03 density treatment effect .3 .04 .15 .03 .05 .02 0 .01 0 density .04 .4 .01 −.05 −.1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 age of household head τ10: disbursement 1 τ21: disbursement 2 τ20: disbursement 1+2 80 90 −.1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 age of household head 80 90 τ10: disbursement 1 τ21: disbursement 2 τ20: disbursement 1+2 Notes: Each curve represents the treatment effects coefficients estimated across household head ages. The marginal effects are recovered from a regression allowing the τ parameters to vary with a quadratic in age.