Labor and Welfare Impacts of a Large-Scale Livelihoods Program : Quasi-Experimental Evidence from India
Improving the livelihoods of poor households and transitioning more women back to the labor force is a major challenge in South Asia. Self-employment promoted through women's groups has often been cited as a promising intervention towards this...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working Paper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/773231560264458668/Labor-and-Welfare-Impacts-of-a-Large-Scale-Livelihoods-Program-Quasi-Experimental-Evidence-from-India http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31873 |
| Summary: | Improving the livelihoods of poor
households and transitioning more women back to the labor
force is a major challenge in South Asia. Self-employment
promoted through women's groups has often been cited as
a promising intervention towards this end. However, the
evidence on the impact of such programs on household income
and labor outcomes is limited, especially for government
programs like the National Rural Livelihoods Mission in
India. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on the
welfare impacts of an "intensive approach" adopted
under this program. The data for the study come from 4,316
household surveys in 727 villages. The study uses matching
methods with the population and socioeconomic census, as
well as an instrumental variable approach to construct a
retrospective control group. The analysis finds that the
program has been able to achieve its primary objective of
improving livelihoods by transitioning more women into work.
The program has also expanded access to credit, increased
the proportion of savings, and reduced interest rates on
credit for rural households. This is the first study to
estimate the annual income effects of a government-run rural
livelihoods program in India, and it shows significant
increases in median income across the sample. The results
for 30th, 40th, and 75th percentiles are also large and
significant. However, the study did not find significant
average treatment effects for income. Contrary to previous
studies, this study finds weaker impacts on assets, except
for livestock. |
|---|