Skip to main content
. 2017 Jan;66:50–61. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.007

Table 5.

Adoption impact on income and poverty: fixed effects instrumental variable estimation.

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Ln income per capita Ln household income Poor (<$1.25) Poor (<$2.00)
Ln improved chickpea area (ha) 1.261∗∗ 1.226∗∗ −0.274 −0.388
(0.551) (0.605) (0.203) (0.207)
Male head (yes = 1) 0.177 0.189 −0.196∗∗ 0.056
(0.185) (0.187) (0.098) (0.112)
Household size (No.) −0.113∗∗ 0.058 0.064∗∗∗ 0.087∗∗∗
(0.045) (0.051) (0.012) (0.013)
Dependents (%) −0.004 −0.004 0.000 0.001
(0.004) (0.004) (0.001) (0.001)
Off-farm income (yes = 1) 0.208∗∗∗ 0.211∗∗∗ −0.069 −0.067
(0.068) (0.069) (0.038) (0.042)
Ln land owned (ha) −0.019 −0.079 −0.293∗∗∗ −0.241∗∗∗
(0.285) (0.328) (0.066) (0.070)
Average rainfall (mm) 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.005
(0.008) (0.009) (0.003) (0.003)
St. dev. rainfall (mm) 0.021 0.024 −0.006∗∗ −0.006∗∗
(0.011) (0.013) (0.003) (0.003)



Kleibergen-Paap Wald F-statistic 67.176∗∗ 67.176∗∗ 67.176∗∗ 67.176∗∗
Observations 1212 1212 1212 1212
Households 606 606 606 606
Bootstrapping replications 1000 1000 1000 1000

Note: Columns present fixed effects instrumental variables regressions for four different measures of household welfare as the dependent variable. In all models Ln improved chickpea area is treated as endogenous and instrumented with the predicted improved chickpea area from the endogenous double hurdle model in column (4) of Table 4. Fully robust bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses (*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01). In addition to household fixed effects, regressions include year dummies.