Appendix Table 4.
Results of Different Targeting Methods on Error Rate - Heterogeneity for Java/Non-Java
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By Income Status | By Detailed Income Status | Per-capita consumption of beneficiaries | ||||||
| Sample: | Full population | Exclusion Error | Inclusion Error | Rich | Middle income | Near Poor | Very Poor | |
| COMMUNITY | 0.038* (0.022) | 0.055** (0.023) | 0.017 (0.040) | 0.048** (0.024) | 0.066* (0.035) | 0.058 (0.051) | −0.030 (0.062) | 26.028 (23.419) |
| HYBRID | 0.021 (0.021) | 0.016 (0.020) | −0.001 (0.038) | 0.034 (0.023) | −0.001 (0.032) | 0.025 (0.051) | −0.024 (0.057) | −3.088 (22.716) |
| COMMUNITY × Java | −0.016 (0.033) | −0.026 (0.037) | 0.012 (0.056) | −0.047 (0.043) | −0.012 (0.053) | −0.016 (0.075) | 0.035 (0.080) | −26.834 (36.993) |
| HYBRID × Java | 0.019 (0.032) | 0.053 (0.036) | 0.016 (0.054) | −0.032 (0.043) | 0.127** (0.051) | 0.010 (0.075) | 0.027 (0.075) | 2.673 (37.739) |
Notes: All regressions include stratum fixed effects. Robust standard errors are shown in parentheses, adjusted for clustering at the village level. All coefficients are interpretable relative to the PMT treatment, which is the omitted category. The mean of the dependent variable in the PMT treatment is shown in the bottom row. All specifications include stratum fixed effects.
*** p<0.01
**
p<0.05
*
p<0.1