3.4. Analysis.

Comparison 3 Unconditional cash transfer compared with same unconditional cash transfer paid through different mechanism, Outcome 4 Local markets and infrastructure.

Local markets and infrastructure
Study	Outcome	Mean in control group	Mean in treatment group	Number of participants	Comments
Aker 2011	Cultivated land, previous growing season Proportion (follow‐up: 3 months after 5 months of intervention)	98%	0.01 higher (0.01 lower to 0.03 higher)	1200 households	Measure of treatment effect: difference‐in‐differences estimator (DD)
Aker 2011	Number of crop types grown, previous growing season Number (follow‐up: 3 months after 5 months of intervention)	4.44 types	0.36 types higher (0.05 lower to 0.77 higher)	1200 households	Measure of treatment effect: DD
Aker 2011	Sold millet, previous growing season Proportion (follow‐up: 3 months after 5 months of intervention)	4%	0.04 higher (0.04 lower to 0.12 higher)	1200 households	Measure of treatment effect: DD
Aker 2011	Spent cash transfer at kiosk in village, reporting period unclear Proportion (follow‐up: 3 months after 5 months of intervention)	43%	0.09 higher (0.03 lower to 0.21 higher)	1200 households	Measure of treatment effect: mean difference (MD)
Aker 2011	Spent cash transfer all at once, reporting period unclear Proportion (follow‐up: 3 months after 5 months of intervention)	54%	0.00 higher (0.08 lower to 0.08 higher)	1200 households	Measure of treatment effect: MD