Are conditional cash transfers effective in urban areas? Evidence from Mexico

Education Economics

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 233-259

  Behrman, Jere R ^a   Gallardo García, Jorge ^b   Parker, Susan W ^c   Todd, Petra E ^a   Vélez Grajales, Viviana ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b Bates White Consulting   (United States)

^c CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y DOCENCIA ECONÓMICAS   (Mexico)

^d INTER AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditional cash transfers; Matching methods; Mexico; Oportunidades; Schooling

Indexed keywords

FINANCIAL PROVISION; FINANCIAL SYSTEM; RURAL AREA; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA];

EID: 84868115174     PISSN: 09645292     EISSN: 14695782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2012.672792     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abadie, A., and G. Imbens. 2006. Sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74, no. 1: 235-67.
2. Angelucci, M., and O. Attanasio. 2009. Oportunidades: Program effects on consumption, low participation and methodological issues. Economic Development and Cultural Change 57, no. 3: 479-506.
3. Angelucci, M., and G. De Giorgi. 2009. Indirect effects of an aid program: How do cash transfers affect ineligibles' consumption? American Economic Review 99, no. 1: 486-508.
4. Angelucci, M., G. De Giorgi, M.A. Rangel, and I. Rasul. 2010. Family networks and school enrollment: Evidence from a randomized social experiment. Journal of Public Economics 94, nos. 3-4: 197-221.
5. Attanasio, O., C. Meghir, and A. Santiago. 2012. Education choices in Mexico: Using a structural model and a randomized experiment to evaluate progresa. Review of Economic Studies. 79, no. 1: 37-66.
6. Becker, G.S. 1999. Bribe third world parents to keep their kids in school. Business Week, November 22.
7. Behrman, J.R., Y. Cheng, and P. Todd. 2004. Evaluating preschool programs when length of exposure to the program varies: A nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, no. 1: 108-32.
8. Behrman, J.R., J. Gallardo-Garcia, S.W. Parker, P.E. Todd, and V. Velez-Grajales. 2011. Are conditional cash transfers effective in urban areas? Evidence from Mexico. Working Paper, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
9. Behrman, J.R., and E.M. King. 2008. Program impact and variation in duration of exposure. In Are you being served: New tools for measuring service delivery, ed. S. Amin, J. Das and M. Goldstein, 147-72. Washington, DC: World Bank.
10. Behrman, J.R., S.W. Parker, and P.E. Todd. 2011. Do conditional cash transfers for schooling generate lasting benefits? Journal of Human Resources 46, no. 1 (Winter), 93-122.
11. Behrman, J.R., P. Sengupta, and P. Todd. 2005. Progressing through PROGRESA: An impact assessment of a school subsidy experiment. Economic Development and Cultural Change 54, no. 1: 237-75.
12. Bobonis, G.J., and F. Finan. 2009. Neighborhood peer effects in secondary school enrollment decisions. Review of Economics and Statistics 91, no. 4: 695-716.
13. Buddelmeyer, H., and E. Skoufias. 2003. An evaluation of the performance of regression discontinuity design on PROGRESA. IZA Discussion Paper No. 827 (July), Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany.
14. Diaz, J.J., and S. Handa. 2006. An assessment of propensity score matching as a nonexperimental impact estimator. Journal of Human Resources 41, no. 2: 319-45.
15. Fan, J. 1992a. Design adaptive nonparametric regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87, no. 420: 998-1004.
16. Fan, J. 1992b. Local linear regression smoothers and their minimax efficiencies. The Annals of Statistics 21, no. 1: 196-216.
17. Fiszbein, A., N. Shady, F. Ferreira, M. Grosh, N. Kelleher, P. Olinto, and E. Skoufias. 2009. Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
18. Galiani, S., P. Gertler, and E. Schargrodsky. 2005. Water for life the impact of the privatization of water services on child mortality in Argentina. Journal of Political Economy 113, no. 1: 83-120.
19. Grant, M.J., and J.R. Behrman. 2010. Gender gaps in educational attainment in less developed countries. Population and Development Review 36, no. 1: 71-89.
20. Hahn, J. (1998). On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica 66, no. 2, 315-331.
21. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, and P. Todd. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64, no. 4: 605-54.
22. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, and P. Todd (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65, no. 2, pp. 261-294.
23. Heckman, J., R. Lalonde, and J. Smith. 1999. The economics and econometrics of active labour market programs. In Handbook of labor economics, ed. Orley C. Ashenfelter and David Card, 1865-2097. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24. Jalan, J., and M. Ravaillon. 2003. Estimating the benefit incidence of an antipoverty program by propensity-score matching. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 21, no. 1: 19-30.
25. King, E.M., and J.R. Behrman. 2009. Timing and duration of exposure in evaluations of social programs. World Bank Research Observer 24, no. 1: 55-82.
26. Lechner, M. 2002. Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A 165, no. 1: 59-82.
27. Parker, S., and J.R. Behrman. 2008. Following young adults who benefited from Oportunidades for almost a decade: Impacts on education and achievement tests. Report for Evaluación Externa del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades 2007-2008. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (INSP), Cuernavaca, Mexico.
28. Parker, S.W., J.R. Behrman, and P.E. Todd. 2004. Medium-term effects on education, work, marriage and migration in rural areas. Technical Document Number 1 on the Evaluation of Oportunidades 2004, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, mimeo.
29. Parker, S.W., L. Rubalcava, and G. Teruel. 2008. Evaluating conditional schooling and health programs. In Handbook of development economics, ed. T. Paul Schultz and John Strauss, 3963-4035. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
30. Parker, S.W., and E. Skoufias. 2000. The impact of PROGRESA on work, leisure and time allocation. October. Report submitted to PROGRESA. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.ifpri.org/themes/progresa.htm.
31. Rosenbaum, P., and D. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, no. 1: 41-55.
32. Schultz, T.P. 2000. Impact of PROGRESA on school attendance rates in the sampled population. February. Report submitted to PROGRESA. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
33. Schultz, T.P 2004. School subsidies for the poor: Evaluating the Mexican Progresa Poverty Program. Journal of Development Economics 74, no. 2: 199-250.
34. Skoufias, E., and B. McClafferty. 2001. Is PROGRESA working? Summary of the results of an Evaluation by IFPRI. Report submitted to PROGRESA. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.ifpri.org/themes/progresa.htm.
35. Smith, J., and P. Todd. 2005. Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental esjtimators? Journal of Econometrics 125, nos. 1-2: 305-53.
36. Todd, P., and K. Wolpin. 2006. Assessing the impact of a school subsidy program in Mexico: Using a social experiment to validate a dynamic behavioral model of child schooling and fertility. American Economic Review 96, no. 5: 1384-417.