How does the extended household react to better jobs opportunities for one member? Evidence from a large-scale public work program in Egypt

The Community Social Services component of the ELIIP evaluated in this IE focuses on social services and youth employment activities that are fostered through grants to non-governmental and/or community-based organizations that employ youth, especially females, to provide social services such as cleanliness, maternal health and environmental awareness campaigns in local communities. A distinguishing feature is that sub-projects are lasting relatively long between 12-18 months and thus provide employment and security for a longer period. Further, sub-projects are required to be labor-intensive: at least 60% of project costs must be on labor. Other criteria are that 80% are between 18 and 29 years old, at least 70% is female, and the beneficiaries should be considered the “poorest of the poor” within their community. The projects are implemented through NGOs, with which the SFD has worked with in the past. To give an example: community health care projects will create job opportunities for girls from the age of 19, who will be trained to provide health education programs and administer home visits to expand access to women, thus contributing to improved maternal and child health. Other NGO projects include: (a) cleanliness and environmental awareness campaigns; (b) early childhood education; (c) mother and child health awareness home visit programs; (d) illiteracy eradication activities; and (e) youth engagement in community initiatives in rural and urban areas, among others.

2015-10-15

2017-04-30

1) Employment and earnings of main respondent:
- Has a job/type of job (e.g., waged/self/casual; fulltime/part-time, etc.)
- Total monthly earnings (aggregated over parallel activities and types of employment)
2) Economic activity and earnings at the Household (HH) level:
- Number of jobs or IGA of other HH members
- Total earnings from other members jobs / IGA
3) Farm employment, productivity and earnings at the HH level:
- Took loans to buy equipment, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. to improve productivity of the field
4) Total Consumption expenditure (household level)
5) Savings, debt, and remittances:
- Has saved money over past 3 months (0/1)
- Total money saved (post-treatment)
6) Coping strategies:
- Received money, food or other assistance from the family or social network in the last 12 months (0/1)
- Net amount of money received from friends or family in last 12 month
7) Children welfare and schooling
- Number of school-age children (5-14 years) in this household have interrupted their schooling
- Number of school-age children (5-14 years) in this household who have engaged in any type of work in the last month

Outcomes (1) is designed to detect whether or not participation in the PWP had a net impact, at the individual level, on labor force participation (intensive and extensive margin). Outcome (2) will ascertain whether participation in the PWP is followed by a reallocation of labor supply within the household; so is outcome (7), which focuses on school-age children. Outcomes (4) and (5) distinguished between two repercussions on added resources at the household level: increased consumption versus increased savings. Outcome (6) will show whether the increased resources received by the household are followed by a reduction of informal family transfers. Finally, outcome (3) will detect if PWP allows households to increase investments in agricultural activity.

1) Employment and earnings of main respondent:
- Has a job/type of job (e.g., waged/self/casual; fulltime/part-time, etc.)
- Total monthly earnings (aggregated over parallel activities and types of employment)
2) Economic activity and earnings at the Household (HH) level:
- Number of jobs or IGA of other HH members
- Total earnings from other members jobs / IGA
3) Farm employment, productivity and earnings at the HH level:
- Took loans to buy equipment, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. to improve productivity of the field
4) Total Consumption expenditure (household level)
5) Savings, debt, and remittances:
- Has saved money over past 3 months (0/1)
- Total money saved (post-treatment)
6) Coping strategies:
- Received money, food or other assistance from the family or social network in the last 12 months (0/1)
- Net amount of money received from friends or family in last 12 month
7) Children welfare and schooling
- Number of school-age children (5-14 years) in this household have interrupted their schooling
- Number of school-age children (5-14 years) in this household who have engaged in any type of work in the last month
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
outcomes (1) is designed to detect whether or not participation in the PWP had a net impact, at the individual level, on labor force participation (intensive and extensive margin). Outcome (2) will ascertain whether participation in the PWP is followed by a reallocation of labor supply within the household; so is outcome (7), which focuses on school-age children. Outcomes (4) and (5) distinguished between two repercussions on added resources at the household level: increased consumption versus increased savings. Outcome (6) will show whether the increased resources received by the household are followed by a reduction of informal family transfers. Finally, outcome (3) will detect if PWP allows households to increase investments in agricultural activity.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
1) Employment and earnings of main respondent:
- Has primary wage employment or income generating activity (IGA)
- Has primary self-employment or IGA
- How long (in months) have you been in this job
- Total days you spend in wage-employment in a typical month
- Total days you spend in self-employment in a typical month
- Total earnings from wage employment in the last 30 days
- Total earnings from self-employment in last 30 days
- Having a secondary job (e.g., waged/self/casual; fulltime/part-time, etc.)
2) Economic activity and earnings at the Household (HH) level:
- Head of the HH has a job or IGA
- Type of job or IGA of the head of HH
- Number of other HH members of have a job or IGA
- Other HH members have additional IGAs
- How much money/earnings did the HH head bring in with this job or IGA?
- How much money/earning did the other HH members bring in with this job or IGA?
- How much money/earning did the other HH members bring in with any such additional IGAs
3) Farm employment, productivity and earnings at the HH level:
- % of land owned by the HH cultivated during the last two seasons
- Hired labor to work in the farms
- Took loans to buy equipment, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. to improve productivity of the field
- Used chemicals fertilizers
- Received advice from an agricultural monitor
4) Migration:
- How many members are no longer living in this household (post-treatment) for work
- How many members are now living in this household (post-treatment) for work
- Have you travelled or move to another city/province or country for work (for some period) of time in the last 24 months
- Number of days in total did you or other HH members spent outside of the city for work
- How much money did you earn while working outside of your home town
5) Consumption expenditure:
- Total value of food own consumption (note: see quantity of farm products produced in the farm employment section)
- Types and source of food consumed by the HH
- Food/drinks at home expenditures
- Transportation-related expenditures
- Electricity, gas, water expenditures in the last month
- Landline, mobile calls and internet expenditures in the last month
- Soap, detergent, cosmetics
- Rent expenditures in the last month
- Other services (hairdresser, veterinarian, repairman) in the last month
- Medical expenditures in the last 6 months (and amount)
- School/education expenditures in the last 6 months (and amount)
-House renovations/repairs
6) Assets accumulation and investments (purchased post-treatment)
- Dwelling type (roof)
- Dwelling type (walls)
- Land purchased
-Real estate purchased
7) Savings, debts and re remittances
- Total money borrowed (post treatment)
- Having a bank account (0/1)
- How long able to cover current expenses through savings
8) Coping strategies
- Household suffer an event that led to a loss of income / cash in the last 12 months (and number)
- Coping strategies (dummies)
- Received money, food or other social assistance THAT IS NOT CASH FOR WORK from the government or NGOs in the last 12 months
9) Children welfare and schooling
- Number school-age children (5-14 years) of this household have never been to school.

The outcomes in this list are designed to refine some of the main hypotheses tested with the primary outcomes list, as well as investigating the channels through which these outcomes occur. In particular, outcomes (1) and (2) investigate whether the participation in a PWP by an individual has a repercussion on the type of jobs of this individual and of the other household members. Outcomes (3) and investigates the channels through which the potential improvement in agricultural yields occur. Outcomes (5) investigate to which extent the structure of household expenditure (as opposed to the level) is modified by one’s member participation in ELIIP. All the outcomes in this list are interpreted only to the extent that the corresponding categories in the “principal outcomes list” contained significant results.

This paper is concerned with two main research questions: (a) What is the causal impact of participation in the ELIIP PWP on labor market outcomes? (b) What is the causal impact on ELIIP on intra-household labor distribution? (c) How is the consumption decision of households modified by ELIIP?

Our impact evaluation is designed to shed light on these questions through the use of randomization at two levels: the village and the individual level. The villages were randomly allocated into treatment and control groups, using two different methods (see PAP for details). In the end, we retain 78 were villages in which projects were signed and implemented, against 86 control villages. In addition to that, there are 70 “overflow” villages, in which project were implemented without randomization at the village level.
In each treated village, NGOs were asked to provide worker lists of twice the number of workers needed in order to enable randomization at the worker level. Worker lists provide detail on the name, gender, age, national ID, type of work, telephone number, residence and official residence. Workers are only excluded from the list if the village registered on their National ID is a control village. We have made the distinction on the workers’ list registration form between where someone lives and the residence information listed on their National ID, since for many people there is a discrepancy between this information.

The double randomization at the village and individual level will allow for the identification of direct effects on program beneficiaries (including consumption, assets, labor market outcomes, and human capital accumulation amongst others) as well as general equilibrium changes in local economic activity. The project activities taking place in overflow villages as selected by NGOs will still allow for randomization at the worker level.

Same as the public version.

We carried out a single round of data collection for individual level outcomes through a survey instrument upon completion of the project. In addition to data collection for individuals, we also carried out a community level survey interviewing local community leaders. For the community level survey component we interviewed two local community leaders (the official/ traditional leader and a secondary leader) in all 234 villages. For the household-level survey, data collection involved surveying households in both treatment and control communities as well program participants and non-participants.



There are three distinct samples: the first, a sample of program participating individuals and (randomly selected) non-participating individuals in “treated” communities (about 15 individuals per village in all treated villages). The second is a synthetic control sample of individuals in control communities who have the similar characteristics of the program participating individuals in “treated” communities (about 5 household per village in all control villages). The third will be a random representative sample of non-participants across treatment and control villages (about 5 households per village in all 234 villages in the study).

Unit of randomization is at the individual and village level.

Yes

234 villages

2348 individuals

Treatment: 1308 Individuals

Control: 1041 Individuals

NA.

ELIIP-IE-PAP