Table 6 reports on the short term effects of BDH on enrollment and years of edu-cation. Columns 1 and 3 show the results of the reduced form regressions (ITT), while columns 2 and 4 show the results from the 2SLS regression in equation 4.
All the regressions include time and county fixed effects, control for gender and are estimated on the sample of individuals that are located within +/- 2.5 points of the Selben I cutoff.
To save space, I report the results only for children aged 10 to 21 years by the end of phase one. These children were between 5 and 16 years old when the first phase began in 2003. By choosing these age groups, I am able to observe the effects of BDH on children who began treatment at all the juncture ages in their academic progress which are age 5, 12 and 15. These are juncture ages because at age 5 parents decide to enroll their children at elementary school, at age 12 they decide to enroll them in high school and at age 15 they decide whether or not to enroll them in Baccalaureate. Furthermore, I study children aged 5 to 16 years in 2003, because the analysis focuses on children who were treated for at least three years during phase one and even when children aged 17 and 18 could benefit from the transfer, they were only exposed to it for two years maximum.
The results of the reduced form regressions in column 1 show negative effects of BDH on enrollment for some age groups, one reason is that the program did not reach all the households with a Selben score below the threshold of eligibility. Figure
Table 6: Short term effects of BDH on enrollment and years of education by the end of phase one.
Enrollment Years of Education
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Ages ITT 2SLS ITT 2SLS N
Effect on 10 year olds -0.00518 0.0130 0.00678 0.212** 5561 (0.00422) (0.00836) (0.0468) (0.0886) Pre- treatment mean 0.992 0.992 5.160 5.160
Effect on 15 year olds -0.0201* 0.0255 0.0180 0.147 6464 (0.0121) (0.0224) (0.0662) (0.117)
Pre- treatment mean 0.886 0.886 8.863 8.863
Effect on 16 year olds 0.0172 0.0127 0.0512 -0.0454 5861 (0.0149) (0.0264) (0.0830) (0.146)
Pre- treatment mean 0.839 0.839 9.291 9.291
Effect on 17 year olds -0.00243 0.0872** -0.107 0.170 5449 (0.0183) (0.0357) (0.0911) (0.174)
Pre- treatment mean 0.723 0.723 9.791 9.791
Effect on 18 year olds 0.000474 0.0836* 0.103 0.321 5343 (0.0210) (0.0437) (0.105) (0.214)
Pre- treatment mean 0.539 0.539 10.42 10.42
Effect on 19 year olds -0.0220 0.0511 -0.110 0.296 5099 (0.0215) (0.0431) (0.111) (0.227)
Pre- treatment mean 0.433 0.433 10.54 10.54
Effect on 20 year olds 0.00882 0.111** 0.105 0.0170 4698 (0.0219) (0.0456) (0.124) (0.257)
Pre- treatment mean 0.379 0.379 10.73 10.73
Effect on 21 year olds -0.0732*** 0.0608 -0.110 0.441 4335 (0.0222) (0.0483) (0.142) (0.323)
Pre- treatment mean 0.331 0.331 10.70 10.70
County and time FE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes: Robust standard errors clustered at county level shown in paren-theses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The table reports on the results of ITT and 2SLS regressions using a linear polynomial of the distance to the cutoff. Sample is children with a score within +/-2.5 points from the Selben I cutoff (50,65 points).
2 shows that before 2009, take up was always below 80% in the area closer to the threshold. Once I correct for the endogeneity of take up by instrumenting the actual treatment with the assignment to treatment, the effects turn positive for all the age groups.
According to the 2SLS estimates reported in column 2, BDH was effective in raising the enrollment rates of 10 to 21 year olds. However, the effect was statistically significant only for 17, 18 and 20 year olds who were around 12, 13 and 15 years when the program started in 2003. Enrollment increased by 8.7 percentage points by the end of phase one among 17 year olds and by 8.3 and 11 percentage points for 18 and 20 year olds respectively.
Given that when the program started most people believed that one of the con-ditions to receive the transfer was to send children to school, I expected to see positive effects on enrollment, however, what is more important is whether these children completed more years of schooling. Columns 3 and 4 report on the short term effects of BDH on years of education by the end of phase one. The reduced form specification reported in column 3 show some negative coefficients that turn positive after instrumenting the actual treatment with the assignment to treatment.
Only 10 year olds, who were 5 years old when the first phase began experienced an increase in their years of education by 0.21 years, for children aged 15, 17 ,18 and 19 years, the effects were positive but not statistically significant.
The observed gains in enrollment are in line with a higher probability of graduating from high school for 18 year olds. For this group, being treated for at least three years during phase one increased the likelihood of graduating by 8.7 percentage points by the end on phase one (See column 2 of Table7). This increase is equivalent to an 18% raise relative to a 48.7% pre-treatment high school graduation rate.
Treated individuals aged 17 and 19 years by the end of phase one also experienced a higher probability of graduating from High School, although not statistically significant.
Furthermore, there was a positive effect of BDH on the likelihood of having some college education among 19 year olds at the end of phase one. These young people were 14 years old when the program started in 2003 and were old enough to benefit from free education at college level. The likelihood of having some college education increased by 7.4 percentage points for this group, relative to a pre-treatment rate of 17.3%, which implies a 43% raise. For 20 and 21 year olds, the effect of BDH was also positive but not statistically significant.
Table 7: Short term effects of BDH on high school graduation and on the likelihood of having some college education by the end of phase one.
High School Has some college
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Ages ITT 2SLS ITT 2SLS N
Effect on 17 year olds -0.0478*** 0.0249 5449
(0.0166) (0.0306) Pre- treatment mean 0.186 0.186
Effect on 18 year olds 0.00984 0.0870** 5343
(0.0211) (0.0441) Pre- treatment mean 0.487 0.487
Effect on 19 year olds -0.0350* 0.0369 -0.0290 0.0737** 5099 (0.0203) (0.0419) (0.0178) (0.0355) Pre- treatment mean 0.573 0.573 0.173 0.173
Effect on 20 year olds -0.00882 0.0323 4698
(0.0206) (0.0417)
Pre- treatment mean 0.228 0.228
Effect on 21 year olds -0.0375* 0.0482 4335
(0.0213) (0.0466)
Pre- treatment mean 0.246 0.246
County and time FE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes: Robust standard errors clustered at county level shown in paren-theses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The table reports on the results of ITT and 2SLS regressions using a linear polynomial of the distance to the cutoff. Sample is children with a score within +/-2.5 points from the Selben I cutoff (50,65 points).