Religious Education in the Age of Mass Schooling Appendix Tables

Tables Table A.1: INPRES Allocation and Baseline Madrasa INPRES Schools (1) Madrasas in District by 1971 INPRES Schools per 1,000 children (2) (3) (4) (5) 5.628*** (1.168) Madrasas by 1971 (per 1,000 children) 2.248* (1.271) School Enrollment in 1971 Child Population in 1971 Enrolled Child Population 1.025* (0.524) 1.367** (0.577) 0.064*** (0.015) 0.008*** (0.002) -0.001*** (0.000) 0.049*** (0.010) 0.008*** (0.001) -0.001*** (0.000) 0.847*** (0.220) 0.308 (0.377) 0.042*** (0.008) 0.006*** (0.002) -0.001*** (0.000) 1.327*** (0.137) 0.580* (0.330) 273 X X X 0.718 Water and Sanitation Program Waqf Assets in District by 1971 Observations Policy Controls Other Controls Province Fixed Effects R2 273 273 273 X 273 X X 0.156 0.028 0.263 0.388 Notes: This table reports OLS estimates from a regression of the number of SD INPRES schools built between 1973–78 on district-level covariates. SD INPRES schools and madrasa are measured in absolute terms in column 1 and per 1,000 children in columns 2–5. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors in parentheses. Table A.2: INPRES Exposure and Islamic Schooling by Gender (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Highest Education Level: [. . . ] Islamic Elementary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary (a) Women INPRES × young p-value (women=men) Observations Dependent Variable Mean R2 -0.0011* (0.0006) 0.0001 (0.0011) 0.0023*** (0.0006) 0.0059*** (0.0013) 0.0011** (0.0005) 0.0031*** (0.0007) 0.350 0.068 0.249 0.000 0.985 0.598 416,125 0.016 0.034 1,986,758 0.011 0.023 416,125 0.011 0.013 1,986,758 0.018 0.026 416,125 0.007 0.009 1,986,758 0.013 0.017 (b) Men INPRES × young Observations Dependent Variable Mean R2 Number of Districts Cohorts aged 2-6 vs. 12-17 in 1974 ———”——– ≤6 vs. ≥12 in 1974 -0.0015*** (0.0005) -0.0012** (0.0006) 0.0018*** (0.0005) 0.0035*** (0.0008) 0.0011*** (0.0003) 0.0033*** (0.0007) 422,901 0.011 0.022 1,951,970 0.008 0.016 422,901 0.010 0.011 1,951,970 0.014 0.020 422,901 0.008 0.007 1,951,970 0.012 0.013 275 X 275 275 X 275 275 X 275 X X X Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) based on annual Susenas data from 2012 to 2018. Panels (a) and (b) report results separately for women and men, respectively. The dependent variables (as in panel (a) of Table 2) include an indicator equal to one if the individual’s final year of schooling was completed in an Islamic elementary (columns 1–2), junior secondary (columns 3–4), and senior secondary (columns 5–6). All specifications include survey year dummies, district of birth dummies and year of birth dummies interacted with the 1971 children population, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program in the district of birth. In odd-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged 2–6 (young) or 12–17 in 1974. In even-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged less than 6 (young) or more than 12 in 1974. The p-values in panel (a) correspond to a test of the difference in coefficients across the two panels. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.3: Effects of INPRES Exposure on Quantity and Type of Schooling by Gender Years of Schooling (1) (2) Highest Level Islamic (3) (4) Islamic | Highest Level (5) (6) (a) Women INPRES × young p-value(women=men) Observations Dependent Variable Mean R2 0.0925*** (0.0291) 0.2616*** (0.0524) 0.0021** (0.0009) 0.0086*** (0.0023) 0.0005 (0.0009) 0.0058*** (0.0017) 0.007 0.323 0.190 0.000 0.987 0.336 416,123 6.864 0.202 1,986,749 7.373 0.420 416,125 0.034 0.035 1,986,758 0.041 0.045 349,899 0.041 0.041 1,564,984 0.052 0.050 (b) Men INPRES × young Observations Dependent Variable Mean R2 Number of Districts Cohorts aged 2-6 vs. 12-17 in 1974 ———”——– ≤6 vs. ≥12 in 1974 0.1735*** (0.0308) 0.2772*** (0.0485) 0.0012* (0.0007) 0.0053*** (0.0016) 0.0004 (0.0007) 0.0048*** (0.0015) 422,896 8.039 0.143 1,951,961 7.959 0.350 422,901 0.028 0.027 1,951,970 0.034 0.036 367,684 0.032 0.030 1,620,329 0.040 0.038 275 X 275 275 X 275 275 X 275 X X X Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) based on annual Susenas data from 2012 to 2018. Panels (a) and (b) report results separately for women and men, respectively. The dependent variables (as in Table 3) include total years of schooling (columns 1–2), an indicator equal to one if the individual’s final year of education is in an Islamic school (columns 3–4), conditional on the given years of schooling completed (columns 5–6). All specifications include survey year dummies, district of birth dummies and year of birth dummies interacted with the 1971 children population, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program in the district of birth. In odd-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged 2–6 (young) or 12–17 in 1974. In even-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged less than 6 (young) or more than 12 in 1974. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.4: INPRES Exposure, Islamic Schooling and the 1982 Headscarf Ban (1) (2) Highest Education Level: Elementary Islamic INPRES × young × woman × (≤12 in 1982) INPRES × young INPRES × young × woman INPRES × young × (≤12 in 1982) Observations Number of Districts Cohorts aged 2-6 vs. 12-17 in 1974 ———”——– ≤6 vs. ≥12 in 1974 Dependent Variable Mean R2 (3) (4) Highest Level is Islamic | on Completing 6 Yrs 0.0008* (0.0004) 0.0010** (0.0004) 0.0016* (0.0009) 0.0011 (0.0008) -0.0007 (0.0004) -0.0006 (0.0004) -0.0009*** (0.0003) 0.0003 (0.0005) -0.0003 (0.0004) -0.0012*** (0.0004) -0.0006 (0.0007) -0.0015** (0.0008) -0.0021*** (0.0008) 0.0002 (0.0008) -0.0009 (0.0007) 0.0008 (0.0015) 839,026 275 X 3,938,728 275 457,020 275 X 2,918,805 275 0.014 0.027 X 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.044 X 0.022 0.049 Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) fully interacted with a gender dummy and a dummy for cohorts aged 12 or less in 1982, based on annual Susenas data from 2012 to 2018. INPRES refers to SD INPRES schools constructed from 1973–78 per 1,000 children in 1971. The headscarf ban in public schools was adopted in 1982. Women aged 12 or less in 1982 would have been too young to complete their primary education before the ban came into force. The dependent variable is an indicator equal to one if the individual’s final year of schooling was completed in an Islamic elementary. Columns 1 and 2 include all individuals regardless of their years of schooling. Columns 3 and 4 include only individuals with 6 years of completed schooling. The regression includes all two-way and three-way interactions between the IN P RES and the young terms in equation (1), a dummy for women, and a dummy for cohorts aged 12 or less in 1982. All specifications also include survey year dummies, district of birth dummies and year of birth dummies interacted with the 1971 children population, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program in the district of birth. In odd-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged 2–6 (young) or 12–17 in 1974. In even-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged less than 6 (young) or more than 12 in 1974. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.5: INPRES Exposure and Islamic Schooling Muslim respondents in the IFLS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Highest Education Level: [. . .] Islamic Elementary INPRES × young Observations Number of Districts Cohorts aged 2-6 vs. 12-17 in 1974 ———”——– ≤6 vs. ≥12 in 1974 Dependent Variable Mean R2 Junior Sec. (7) (8) (9) (10) Years of Islamic Education Senior Sec. Elementary Secondary -0.0173 (0.0108) -0.0222*** (0.0076) 0.0311 (0.0218) 0.0313** (0.0155) 0.0311 (0.0338) 0.0321* (0.0189) -0.0637 (0.0620) -0.0907** (0.0392) 0.1506 (0.1048) 0.1001** (0.0507) 6,124 205 X 41,818 252 3,164 197 X 23,875 247 2,206 188 X 15,407 238 6,124 205 X 41,818 252 3,318 198 X 25,184 248 0.110 0.136 X 0.122 0.145 0.217 0.144 X 0.274 0.121 0.186 0.150 X 0.244 0.123 0.589 0.132 X 0.622 0.137 0.950 0.136 X 1.101 0.120 Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) based on Muslim respondents in the IFLS (1993–2015). The binary outcome variables in columns 1–6 are akin to those in panel (b) of Table 2, and the outcomes in columns 6–10 are continuous years of education at the given level. All specifications include district of birth dummies and year of birth dummies interacted with the 1971 children population, the 1971 enrollment rate, exposure to the water and sanitation program in the district of birth, and the share of Muslim respondents in the 1972 census. In odd-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged 2–6 (young) or 12–17 in 1974. In even-numbered columns, the sample is composed of all individuals aged less than 6 (young) or more than 12 in 1974. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.6: INPRES Exposure and Islamic Schooling Using Podes 1980 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (a) Highest Education Level: [. . . ] Islamic Elementary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary INPRES (Podes 80) × young -0.0016* (0.0008) -0.0013 (0.0013) 0.0023*** (0.0007) 0.0064*** (0.0016) 0.0017*** (0.0005) 0.0051*** (0.0011) Observations Dependent Variable Mean R2 836,694 0.014 0.027 3,928,356 0.010 0.019 836,694 0.011 0.011 3,928,356 0.016 0.023 836,694 0.008 0.007 3,928,356 0.012 0.014 (b) Highest Education Level is Islamic, (b) Conditional on Completing [. . . ] 6 Years 9 Years 12 Years INPRES (Podes 80) × young Observations Dependent Variable Mean R2 Number of Districts Cohorts aged 2-6 vs. 12-17 in 1974 ———”——– ≤6 vs. ≥12 in 1974 -0.0026*** (0.0010) -0.0013 (0.0020) 0.0018 (0.0031) 0.0090** (0.0044) 0.0008 (0.0020) 0.0084*** (0.0029) 456,193 0.025 0.044 2,912,066 0.030 0.049 121,460 0.073 0.076 1,310,220 0.103 0.081 169,080 0.038 0.036 1,344,561 0.056 0.048 273 X 273 273 X 273 273 X 273 X X X Notes: This table reports estimates of Table 2 using an alternative measure of INPRES schools from village-level administrative data in 1980 aggregated to the district-level for comparison with our baseline measure from Duflo (2001). The specification is otherwise identical to that in Table 2; see the notes therein for details. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.7: Effect of INPRES Exposure on Quantity and Type of Schooling Using Podes 1980 Years of Schooling (1) (2) INPRES (Podes 80) × young Observations Number of Districts Cohorts aged 2-6 vs. 12-17 in 1974 ———”——– ≤6 vs. ≥12 in 1974 Dependent Variable Mean R2 Highest Level Islamic (3) (4) Islamic | Highest Level (5) (6) 0.1176*** (0.0443) 0.2541*** (0.0756) 0.0023** (0.0012) 0.0097*** (0.0032) 0.0007 (0.0011) 0.0074*** (0.0024) 836,687 273 X 3,928,338 273 836,694 273 X 3,928,356 273 715,696 273 X 3,177,841 273 7.450 0.162 X 7.658 0.375 0.031 0.030 X 0.037 0.040 0.036 0.034 X 0.046 0.044 Notes: This table reports estimates of Table 3 using an altenrative measure of INPRES schools from village-level administrative data in 1980 aggregated to the district-level for comparison with our baseline measure from Duflo (2001). The specification is otherwise identical to that in Table 3; see the notes therein for details. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.8: Why the Supply Side Response to SD INPRES Matters School Construction, ’73-8 INPRES primary × young Years of Schooling (1) (2) Any Islamic Secondary (5) (6) 0.138*** (0.027) 0.140*** (0.027) 0.472 (0.950) 0.063 (0.156) 3.484*** (1.270) 0.006 (0.004) 0.006 (0.004) 0.185* (0.109) -0.026 (0.017) 0.350** (0.158) 0.003*** (0.001) 0.003*** (0.001) -0.015 (0.023) 0.016*** (0.005) 0.063* (0.036) 836,687 273 7.450 836,687 273 7.450 836,687 273 0.414 836,687 273 0.414 836,687 273 0.018 836,687 273 0.018 state secondary × young Islamic primary × young Islamic secondary × young Number of Observations Number of Districts Dependent Variable Mean Any Secondary Schooling (3) (4) Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) for years of schooling (columns 1–2), an indicator for any secondary schooling (columns 3–4), and an indicator for any Islamic secondary schooling (columns 5–6). The specification in oddnumbered columns is identical to that in Tables 2 and 3. We consider cohorts aged 2–6 (young) or 12–17 in 1974. The even-numbered columns include additional interactions of the young (exposed cohort) dummy with the number of state secondary, Islamic primary, and Islamic secondary schools constructed (per 1,000 children in 1971) from 1973 to the 1978, the same window in which INPRES primary schools were constructed. The specification is otherwise identical to that in Tables 2 and 3; see the notes therein for details. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.9: Islam–State Competition at the Local Level Conditional on Pre-INPRES Islamic School Presence Islamic School Entry Elem.=1 Elem.=0 Elem.=1 Jun. Sec.=0 Jun. Sec.=1 Jun. Sec.=1 (1) (2) (3) (a) Entry 1973–1983 SD INPRES built in village, 1973–78 0.002 (0.002) 0.005*** (0.001) 0.00004 (0.0005) SD INPRES saturation at subdistrict level -0.012 (0.017) 0.009*** (0.002) 0.001 (0.002) any elem. madrasa in village pre-1973 0.015** (0.007) 0.014*** (0.002) 0.005*** (0.001) any jun. sec. madrasa in village pre-1973 0.046*** (0.011) -0.008 (0.009) 0.007*** (0.002) 0.049 75,090 0.009 0.004 Number of Villages Share of Villages with Given Profile (b) Entry 1984–1998 SD INPRES built in village, 1973–78 0.006*** (0.002) 0.015*** (0.002) 0.004*** (0.001) SD INPRES saturation at subdistrict level 0.029*** (0.007) 0.020*** (0.006) 0.011*** (0.003) any elem. madrasa in village pre-1973 0.006 (0.006) 0.048*** (0.004) 0.007*** (0.002) any jun. sec. madrasa in village pre-1973 0.038*** (0.008) 0.004 (0.010) -0.008 (0.009) 0.035 75,090 0.039 0.009 Number of Villages Share of Villages with Given Profile Notes: This table reports average marginal effects from the multinomial logit regression as in Table 5 but here including two additional regressors capturing Islamic school presence prior to INPRES: any elementary madrasa and any junior secondary madrasa pre-1973. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district. Table A.10: New Islamic Schools Over Time in Historical Administrative Data Prim. (1) Islamic Schools Jun. Sec. Sen. Sec. (2) (3) pesantren (4) Prim. (5) Secular Schools Jun. Sec. Sen. Sec. (6) (7) Effect of No. of INPRES Schools on. . . 1980 level 0.258*** (0.063) – – 0.044* (0.023) 0.492*** (0.088) -0.064*** (0.020) -0.060*** (0.015) ∆ 1980 - 1983 0.022 (0.019) – – 0.008 (0.006) -0.077 (0.056) 0.023 (0.016) -0.006 (0.008) ∆ 1983 - 1990 0.126*** (0.032) – – 0.015 (0.012) 0.282*** (0.086) 0.011 (0.030) 0.005 (0.021) ∆ 1990 - 1993 0.015 (0.022) 0.009* (0.005) 0.012*** (0.004) 0.011** (0.004) -0.028 (0.047) 0.015 (0.017) 0.011 (0.013) 273 93.4 -0.05 20.5 -4.3 273 – – – 1.8 273 – – – 0.9 273 19.1 0.7 9.1 2.0 273 424.1 47.5 52.9 0.3 273 46.9 15.2 8.9 -1.3 273 18.7 9.9 11.6 -2.3 Number of Districts Mean 1980 level Mean ∆1980 - 1983 Mean ∆1983 - 1990 Mean ∆1990 - 1993 Notes: This table examines supply-side responses to INPRES using historical administrative data from the 1980, 1983, 1990 and 1993 rounds Podes, which asked about the number of schools of different types. Each cell shows the coefficient from a separate district-level cross-sectional regression of the given outcome on the number of SD INPRES primary schools constructed from 1973 to 1978. The first row looks at the number of schools of each level in 1980, and subsequent rows look at the difference in the stock reported between the initial and final year of the difference. The district-level number of pesantren are computed by adding up the number of villages that report having any pesantren. Secondary Islamic schools were not recorded until the 1990 round of Podes. The regressions control for the 1971 children population, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors. Table A.11: Curriculum Differentiation in Islamic Schools (Total Hours) All Levels (1) Primary (2) Jun. Sec. (3) Sen. Sec. (4) (a) Islamic Subject Hours INPRES × post-1972 Dependent Variable Mean 0.274* (0.141) 0.250* (0.147) 0.341 (0.318) -2.058** (0.864) 7.060 5.651 7.999 9.300 (b) Pancasila/Civic Hours INPRES × post-1972 Dependent Variable Mean -0.024 (0.019) n/a 0.817 -0.208** (0.081) 0.204* (0.104) 1.804 1.426 (c) Arabic Hours INPRES × post-1972 Dependent Variable Mean 0.038* (0.023) 0.059* (0.033) -0.062 (0.068) 0.375*** (0.102) 1.536 1.131 1.917 2.009 (d) Bahasa Indonesia Hours INPRES × post-1972 -0.096* (0.051) -0.015 (0.062) -0.334*** (0.118) 0.088 (0.140) Dependent Variable Mean 1.719 0.148 3.634 2.865 Number of Observations Number of Districts 16,889 263 8,559 245 5,077 250 3,251 225 Notes: This table reports analogous specifications to those in Table 6 with the dependent variable measured in total hours of instruction time per subject rather than subject-specific shares of total instruction time. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district. Table A.12: Correlations of Curriculum and Test Scores Test Scores in [...] Math Science (1) (2) Islamic curriculum share Pancasila and Civics curriculum share Number of Observations Dep. Var. Mean -0.0539** (0.0217) 0.0550 (0.0758) -0.0398* (0.0221) 0.0553 (0.0833) 1,371 0.0 1,371 0.0 Notes: This table reports correlations of test scores in math and science (the combination of which is the dependent variable in panel c of Table 6) and the share of weekly instruction time devoted to Islamic and Pancasila/civics curriculum (the dependent variables in panel a and b of Table 6). There are only 1,371 junior secondary schools for which we can link test scores and curriculum registries. The regressions include district and year-of-school-entry fixed effects. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district. Table A.13: INPRES Intensity and Test Score Differentials Math and Science Test Scores in [...] All Schools Islamic Non-Islamic ∆ I-NI (1) (2) (3) (4) INPRES × post-1972 0.001 (0.025) -0.122 (0.117) 0.0002 (0.0241) -0.623** (0.249) Number of Observations Number of Districts Dependent Variable Mean 10,055 273 0.00 2,486 209 0.00 9,252 273 0.00 1,681 186 0.00 Notes: This table examines science and math test score outcomes at the junior secondary level in the 2014 school year. The unit of analysis is a district–year-of-entry, and the panel is unbalanced, including only years in which the given district had any schools enter. The dependent variables capture the standardized test score for all schools (column 1), Islamic (column 2), non-Islamic schools (column 3), and the difference between Islamic and non-Islamic schools in the given district–yearof-entry (column 4). This specification include district fixed effects, year-of-entry fixed effects, and a post-1972 dummy interacted with the 1971 children population, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.14: INPRES Exposure and Linguistic Ability Able to Speak Indonesian All Muslims Non-Muslims (1) (2) (3) Latin Alphabet Literacy Islamic-Educ. Secular-Educ. (5) (6) All (4) All (7) Other Literacy Islamic-Educ. Secular-Educ. (8) (9) INPRES × young 0.0182*** (0.0052) 0.0242*** (0.0068) 0.0049 (0.0041) 0.0194*** (0.0042) 0.0111*** (0.0039) 0.0196*** (0.0042) 0.0034 (0.0023) -0.0003 (0.0050) 0.0034 (0.0023) Observations Number of Districts Dep. Var. Mean 31,678,510 273 0.931 27,811,101 273 0.933 3,867,324 273 0.918 839,026 275 0.914 25,935 268 0.985 813,087 275 0.912 839,026 275 0.060 25,935 268 0.045 813,087 275 0.061 Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) using data from the 2010 Population Census (columns 1–3) and Susenas 2012–18 (columns 4–9). The specification in columns 1–3 is the same as in columns 1–3 of panel (a) in Table 7 with the outcome here being whether the respondent is able to speak Indonesian. The specification in columns 4–9 is the same as in columns 4–6 of panel (a) in Table 7 with the other literacy outcomes here. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.15: Correlations of Islamic Education and Literacy Years-of-Schooling Fixed Effects Literacy in . . . Alphabet Arabic Latin Other (1) (2) (3) Islamic primary Islamic junior secondary Islamic senior secondary Number of Observations Number of Districts Dependent Variable Mean 0.1992*** (0.0118) 0.2627*** (0.0093) 0.2842*** (0.0085) 0.0144*** (0.0020) 0.0003 (0.0013) -0.0004 (0.0012) -0.0109*** (0.0025) -0.0021 (0.0030) -0.0012 (0.0053) 839,019 275 0.343 839,019 275 0.914 839,019 275 0.060 Notes: This table regresses indicators for literacy in different languages/alphabets on indicators for whether the respondent’s final level of schooling was Islamic primary, junior secondary or senior secondary. The data come from our baseline Susenas data from 2012 to 2018, and the sample is restricted to our baseline cohort specification used throughout the paper. The regressions are conditional on total years-of-schooling fixed effects such that the coefficients identify the differential literacy rates for those completing Islamic versus non-Islamic school with the same total years of schooling. The specification omits the interaction of INPRES and the exposure dummy but is otherwise identical to that used in column 4 of panel (a) in Table 7. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.16: INPRES Exposure and Schooling in the Pepinsky et al. (2018) Sample Any Elementary (1) INPRES × young Observations Number of Districts Dep Var. Mean R2 Highest Education Level: Islamic Elementary Islamic Jun. Sec. (2) (3) Islamic Sen. Sec (4) 0.0829** (0.0389) 0.0067 (0.0207) 0.0380** (0.0152) -0.0020 (0.0087) 1,785 145 0.773 0.390 1,694 145 0.029 0.250 1,694 145 0.037 0.202 1,694 145 0.021 0.258 Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) using data from Pepinsky et al. (2018). The sample is restricted to Muslim respondents and compares individuals aged 6 or less in 1974 (young) with individuals aged 12 or more in 1974. All specifications include district fixed effects and year fixed effects interacted with the number of children in the district in 1971, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.17: Null Effects of INPRES Exposure on Religious Political Preferences (I) INPRES × young Observations Number of Districts Dep. Var. Mean Corporal Punishments (1) Prohibit Interest (2) Hijab Mandatory (3) Support Polygamy (4) Punish Adultery (5) Punish Apostasy (6) Index Subjective (7) Index Objective (8) -0.0174 (0.0474) 1,722 143 0.312 -0.0438 (0.0469) 1,625 143 0.452 0.0414 (0.0355) 1,740 143 0.826 0.0142 (0.0578) 1,777 145 0.388 -0.0182 (0.0516) 1,740 145 0.433 -0.0006 (0.0281) 1,714 145 0.183 -0.0040 (0.0222) 1,790 145 0.433 -0.0311 (0.0328) 1,703 145 0.681 Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) using data from Pepinsky et al. (2018). The outcomes in columns 1–6 correspond to the sub-components of the objective index of support for sharia law used in Table 8 and reproduced here in column 8. The specification is otherwise identical to that in Table 8; see the notes therein for details. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.18: Null Effects of INPRES Exposure on Religious Political Preferences (II) INPRES × young Observations Number of Districts Dep. Var. Mean Muslim President (1) Religiosity President (2) Islam in Politics (3) Support: Islamic Economics (4) Islam in Society (5) -0.0204 (0.0358) 1,771 145 0.664 -0.0219 (0.0350) 1,769 145 0.774 0.1129 (0.0726) 1,564 144 2.280 -0.0269 (0.0610) 1,583 144 2.133 -0.0311 (0.0328) 1,703 145 0.681 Notes: This table reports estimates of equation (1) using data from Pepinsky et al. (2018). The outcomes are indicators for whether the respondent believes the president should be Muslim (column 1), religiosity of the president is important (2), Islam should play a central role in politics (3), in the economy (4), and in society (5). The sample is restricted to Muslim respondents and compares individuals aged 6 or less (young) in 1974 with individuals aged 12 or more in 1974. All specifications include district fixed effects and year fixed effects interacted with the number of children in the district in 1971, the 1971 enrollment rate, and exposure to the water and sanitation program. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by district of birth. Table A.19: Intergenerational Transmission of Islamic Schooling (OLS) Elem. (1) Jun. Sec. (2) Child’s Education: [. . . ] Islamic Sen. Sec. Any Elem. Jun. Sec. (3) (4) (5) (6) 0.0946*** (0.0088) 0.0013 (0.0023) 0.0016 (0.0020) 0.0914*** (0.0072) 0.0834*** (0.0076) 0.0233*** (0.0072) 0.0764*** (0.0076) 0.0947*** (0.0085) 0.1545*** (0.0118) Sen. Sec. (7) Any (8) Father’s education: elementary Islamic junior secondary Islamic senior secondary Islamic any Islamic 0.2015*** (0.0090) Mother’s education: elementary Islamic 0.0897*** (0.0076) 0.0036 (0.0024) -0.0004 (0.0019) junior secondary Islamic senior secondary Islamic 0.0932*** (0.0074) 0.0625*** (0.0066) 0.0109* (0.0059) 0.0826*** (0.0068) 0.1003*** (0.0109) 0.1390*** (0.0113) any Islamic Observations Number of Districts Dependent Variable Mean 0.2008*** (0.0093) 304,048 275 0.005 304,048 275 0.026 304,048 275 0.034 304,048 275 0.061 246,066 275 0.005 246,066 275 0.026 246,066 275 0.033 246,066 275 0.060 Notes: This table reports correlations of parental Islamic schooling and children’s Islamic schooling. Columns 1–4 are for father’s Islamic schooling and 5–8 for mother’s. The sample in columns 1–4 (5–8) is the same as in odd-numbered (even-numbered) columns 3–8 of Table 9. The outcomes parallel those in panel (a) of Table 2. All of these specifications are restricted to children with mothers and fathers fall within the original birth cohorts: aged 2–6 (young) or 12–17 in 1974. The regressions additionally control for child birth cohort fixed effects. The specification is otherwise identical to that in Table 2; see the notes therein for details. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Robust standard errors clustered by the parent’s district of birth.