Erratum to Does supply matter? Initial supply conditions and the effectiveness of conditional cash transfers for grade progression in Nicaragua (Journal of Development Effectiveness (2010), (87-116), 10.1080/19439340903584085);Does supply matter? Initial schooling conditions and the effectiveness of conditional cash transfers for grade progression in Nicaragua

Journal of Development Effectiveness

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 87-116

  Maluccio, John A ^a   Murphy, Alexis ^b   Regalia, Ferdinando ^c  

^a Middlebry College   (United States)

^b INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c INTER AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditional cash transfer; Impact evaluation; Schooling; Supply side

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; EDUCATION REFORM; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS;

NICARAGUA;

EID: 83955165849     PISSN: 19439342     EISSN: 19439407     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2010.498666     Document Type: Erratum

References (26)

1. Adato, M. and Hoddinott, J., 2010. Conditional cash transfers in Latin America: a magic bullet to reduce poverty? Washington, DC: IFPRI/Johns Hopkins University Press.
2. Adato, M. and Roopnaraine, T., 2004. A social analysis of the Red de Protección Social. Report submitted to the Red de Protección Social. Photocopy. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
3. Alderman, H., Behrman, J.R., Kohler, H.-P., Maluccio, J.A. and Cotts Watkins, S., 2001. Attrition in longitudinal household survey data: some tests for three developing country samples. Demographic research, 5 (4), 77-124.
4. Behrman, J.R. and Hoddinott, J., 2005. Program evaluation with unobserved heterogeneity and selective implementation: the Mexican Progresa impact on child nutrition. Oxford bulletin of economics and statistics, 67 (2), 547-569.
5. Behrman, J. R., Parker, S. and Todd, P., 2009. Schooling impacts of conditional cash transfers on young children: evidence from Mexico. Economic development and cultural change, 57 (3), 439-447.
6. Behrman, J.R., Sengupta, S.P. and Todd, P., 2005. Progressing through Progresa: an impact assessment of a school subsidy experiment in rural Mexico. Economic development and cultural change, 54 (1),237-275.
7. Caldes, N., Coady, D. and Maluccio, J.A., 2006. The cost of poverty alleviation transfer programs: a comparative analysis of three programs in Latin America. World development, 34 (5), 818-837.
8. Coady, D.P. and Parker, S.W., 2004. Cost-effectiveness analysis of demand- and supply-side education interventions: the case of PROGRESA in Mexico. Review of development economics, 8 (3), 440-451.
9. Fitzgerald, J., Gottschalk, P. and Moffitt, R., 1998a. An analysis of sample attrition in panel data. Journal of human resources, 33 (2), 251-299.
10. Fitzgerald, J., Gottschalk, P. and Moffitt, R., 1998b. The impact of attrition in the PSID on intergenerational analysis. Journal of human resources, 33 (2), 300-344.
11. Fiszbein, A. and Schady, N., 2009. Conditional cash transfers: reducing present and future poverty. Washington, DC: The World Bank, World Bank Policy research report.
12. Gitter, S. and Barham, B., 2008.Women's power, conditional cash transfers, and schooling in Nicaragua. World Bank economic review, 22 (2), 271-290.
13. Glewwe, P. and Olinto, P., 2004. Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfers on schooling: an experimental analysis of Honduras's PRAF program. Photocopy. University of Minnesota.
14. Handa, S. 2002. Raising primary school enrolment in developing countries: the relative importance of supply and demand. Journal of development economics, 69 (2002), 103-128.
15. Heckman, J. and Smith, J.A., 1995. Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of economic perspectives, 9 (2), 85-110.
16. Heinrich, C.J., 2007. Demand and supply-side determinants of conditional cash transfer program effectiveness. World development, 35 (1), 121-143.
17. King, E.M., Ozler, B. and Rawlings, L.B., 1999. Nicaragua's school autonomy reform: fact or fiction? Working paper series on impact evaluation of educational reforms. Washington, DC: The World Bank, Paper No. 19.
18. Maluccio, J.A., 2009. Household targeting in practice: the Nicaraguan Red de Protección Social. Journal of international development, 21 (1), 1-23.
19. Maluccio, J.A. and Flores, R., 2005. Impact evaluation of the pilot phase of the Nicaraguan Red de Protección Social. Washington, DC: IFPRI, Research Report No. 141
20. Ravallion, M., 2008. Evaluating anti-poverty programs. In: T.P. Schultz and John Strauss, eds. Handbook of development economics. vol. 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 3787-3846.
21. Regalia, F. and Castro, L., 2007. Performance-based incentives for health: demand and supply-side incentives in the Nicaraguan Red de Protección Social. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development, Working Paper No. 119.
22. Schultz, T.P., 2004. School subsidies for the poor: evaluating the Mexican PROGRESA poverty program. Journal of development economics, 74, 119-250.
23. Skoufias, E., 2005. PROGRESA and its impacts on the human capital and welfare of households in rural Mexico. Washington, DC: IFPRI, Research Report No. 139.
24. StataCorp, 2007. Stata statistical software: Release 10.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
25. Thomas, D., Frankenberg, E. and Smith, J.P., 2001. Lost but not forgotten: attrition and follow-up in the Indonesia Family Life Survey. Journal of Human Resources, 36 (3), 556-592.
26. World Bank, 2001. Nicaragua poverty assessment: challenges and opportunities for poverty reduction. Washington, DC: The World Bank, Report No. 20488-NI.