Skip to main content

Table 13 Effect of the AUH on labor intensity. Alternative control groups

From: Cash transfers and female labor force participation: the case of AUH in Argentina

 

All women

With children (i)

Informal (ii)

Poor (iii)

P WCh, P I, I WCh (iv)

Treat × After

− 0.0652***

− 0.0657***

− 0.0594

− 0.0623*

− 0.0535*

(0.0236)

(0.0251)

(6346)

(0.0320)

(0.0290)

Individual and household characteristics

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Regional and time dummies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Mills lambda

0.437

0.111

141,726

0.555

− 0.257

(1.230)

(0.929)

(3.623e + 10)

(0.432)

(0.593)

Rho

0.694

0.175

1.000

0.850

− 0.398

Sigma

0.630

0.636

141,726

0.652

0.644

Lambda

0.437

0.111

141,726

0.555

− 0.257

Observations

65,722

41,240

31,574

26,628

30,442

 Censored

37,620

24,030

22,317

19,490

21,765

 Not censored

28,102

17,210

9257

7138

8677

Wald chi2 (57)

116.58

106.95

0.00

64.05

70.72

  1. Source: Authors’ calculation based on EPH data. Note 1: Sample is restricted to employed women during the whole period between 20 and 60 years old. The dependent variable measures the change in the total hours worked per week normalized by the intertemporal average labor intensity of each woman. To apply a diff-in-diff specification, we include variables Treat (equals 1 for eligible women—with children in poor and informal households), After (equals 1 for the period 2010–2013), and the interaction between them (Treat × After). We also add other control variables: age, squared age, educational level, marital status, the activity sector in which she is employed, binary indicators of the head of household and of whether the woman is in charge of household chores, labor status of her spouse, per capita family income, family size, number of members by age and gender, region fixed effects, and time fixed effects (quarters). Clustered robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. Note 2: Two-step Heckman selection model is applied to correct the selection bias arising from labor participation equation (probability of being employed in all periods we observe each woman). The selection equation to obtain Heckman’s two-step consistent estimates includes the following control variables: age; squared age; educational level; marital status; binary indicators of the head of household, if she lives in poor, informal households with children, and of whether the woman (or her spouse) is in charge of household chores; region fixed effects; and time fixed effects (quarters). Note 3: Alternative control groups: (i) non-eligible women with children (i.e., we drop those women without children in the control group), (ii) non-eligible women in households with no formal partner, (iii) non-eligible women in poor households, and (iv) non-eligible women with two of the three main requirements—with children (WCh), poor (P), and with no formal partner (I)
Back to article page