Table 10.
Do community meetings reflect broadly shared preferences?
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank Correlations with: | ||||||||
| Attend Meeting (Meeting Data) | Attend Meeting (HH Data) | Female Attends (Meeting Data) | Mis-target | Consumption | Community (excl sub-village head) | Sub-village Head | Self-Assessment | |
| Community treatment | 0.349*** (0.042) | 0.028 (0.021) | −0.089** (0.045) | 0.232*** (0.040) | 0.180*** (0.052) | 0.072 (0.044) | ||
| Hybrid treatment | 0.020 (0.029) | 0.353*** (0.041) | 0.008 (0.017) | 0.026 (0.021) | −0.089*** (0.044) | 0.130*** (0.039) | 0.064 (0.051) | 0.046 (0.044) |
| Day meeting treatment | −0.021 (0.029) | 0.013 (0.033) | 0.104*** (0.017) | 0.008 (0.016) | 0.019 (0.033) | 0.004 (0.029) | 0.055 (0.038) | 0.014 (0.033) |
| Elite treatment | −0.064** (0.029) | −0.300*** (0.033) | −0.085*** (0.017) | 0.005 (0.016) | −0.004 (0.033) | −0.023 (0.029) | 0.034 (0.038) | −0.017 (0.033) |
| 10 Poorest treatment | 0.022 (0.029) | 0.023 (0.034) | −0.010 (0.018) | −0.006 (0.016) | 0.031 (0.033) | 0.047 (0.029) | 0.044 (0.038) | 0.062* (0.032) |
| Observations | 431 | 287 | 428 | 5753 | 640 | 640 | 640 | 637 |
| Mean in PMT treatment | 0.110 | 0.300 | 0.451 | 0.506 | 0.456 | 0.343 | ||
Notes: For column (3), the dependent variable is the percentage of households in the village in which a female attends the meeting, using data collected from the meeting attendance lists.
***
p<0.01
**
p<0.05
*
p<0.1