Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
    • Free Issue
    • Special Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
    • Alerts
  • Announcements
  • Special Issue
  • Other Publications
    • UW Press Journals

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Human Resources
  • Other Publications
    • UW Press Journals
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Human Resources

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
    • Free Issue
    • Special Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
    • Alerts
  • Announcements
  • Special Issue
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Follow JHR on Bluesky
Research ArticleArticles
Open Access

Child Schooling and Child Work in the Presence of a Partial Education Subsidy

Jacobus de Hoop, Jed Friedman, Eeshani Kandpal and Furio C. Rosati
Journal of Human Resources, March 2019, 54 (2) 503-531; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.2.0317.8627R1
Jacobus de Hoop
Social policy specialist at the UNICEF Office of Research–Innocenti in Florence.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jed Friedman
Senior economist in the Development Research Group of the World Bank in Washington, DC.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eeshani Kandpal
Economist in the Development Research Group of the World Bank in Washington, DC.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ekandpal{at}worldbank.org
Furio C. Rosati
Professor of economics at the University of Rome “Tor Vergata.”
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Descriptive Statistics: Children from Pantawid Control Communities

     Mean Values
    Extensive margin:
        Attends0.882
        Attends primary school0.651
        Attends secondary school0.231
        Attends regularly0.793
        Attends primary school regularly0.579
        Attends secondary school regularly0.215
        Worked in past 12 months0.202
    Pay and location:
        For pay, outside own household0.091
        For pay, inside own household0.031
        Without pay, outside own household0.040
        Without pay, inside own household0.091
    Types of occupations:
        Laborers and unskilled workers0.144
        Farmers, forestry workers, and fishermen0.079
        Other0.008
        Worked in past seven days0.158
    Pay and location:
        For pay, outside own household0.066
        For pay, inside own household0.017
        Without pay, outside own household0.028
        Without pay, inside own household0.080
    Types of occupations:
        Laborers and unskilled workers0.098
        Farmers, forestry workers, and fishermen0.068
        Other0.000
    Mutually exclusive combinations of school and work
        In school only0.725
        In work only0.038
        In school and in work0.164
        Neither in school nor in work0.073
        Worked while school was in session0.094
    Intensive margin:
        Days attended school past two weeks
            Unconditional7.4
            Conditional on attending school8.6
        Days worked in past 12 months
            Unconditional5.9
            Conditional on any work29.7
        Days worked for pay, outside own household in past 12 months
            Unconditional2.2
            Conditional on any work24.4
        Hours worked in past seven days
            Unconditional1.9
            Conditional on any work12.4
        Hours worked for pay, outside own household in past seven days
            Unconditional0.7
            Conditional on any work10.6
    • Notes: Estimates based on 656 children aged 10–14 from eligible households in control villages.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Pantawid Program Impact on School Attendance

     Attends
    (1)
    Attends Primary School
    (2)
    Attends Secondary School
    (3)
    Attends Regularly
    (4)
    Attends Primary School Regularly
    (5)
    Attends Secondary School Regularly
    (6)
    Days Attended School Past Two Weeks
    (7)
    OLS only controlling for municipality and child age0.044**
    (0.019)
    0.039
    (0.024)
    0.004
    (0.021)
    0.094***
    (0.025)
    0.076***
    (0.027)
    0.016
    (0.021)
    0.955***
    (0.243)
    Additional information:
        Number of observations1,2641,2641,2641,2431,2431,2431,263
        Observations in control group627627627611611611626
        Observations in treatment group637637637632632632637
        Mean in control group0.8870.6650.2220.7950.5890.2067.502
        Mean in treatment group0.9290.7000.2280.8880.6630.2238.457
        Conditional mean in control group      8.648
        Conditional mean in treatment group      9.131
    • Notes: Estimates of program impact on self-reported education outcomes of children aged 10–14 from eligible households. Standard errors are clustered at the village level. Conditional means are means conditional on any school days attended.

    • * p < 0.1,

    • ↵** p < 0.05,

    • ↵*** p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Pantawid Program Impact on Children’s Participation in Economic Activities

      Pay and LocationTypes of OccupationsDays Worked
    Any Work
    (1)
    Work for Pay, Outside Own Household
    (2)
    Work for Pay, Inside Own Household
    (3)
    Work without Pay, Outside Own Household
    (4)
    Work Without Pay, Inside Own Household
    (5)
    Laborers and Unskilled Workers
    (6)
    Farmers, Forestry Workers, and Fishermen
    (7)
    Other
    (8)
    Days Worked
    (9)
    Days Worked for Pay, Outside Own Household
    (10)
    OLS only controlling for municipality and child age0.038
    (0.029)
    0.050**
    (0.021)
    −0.003
    (0.010)
    −0.007
    (0.011)
    0.010
    (0.021)
    0.045*
    (0.026)
    −0.005
    (0.016)
    0.004
    (0.007)
    1.812
    (1.765)
    1.728
    (1.370)
    Additional information:
        Number of observations1,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,2611,263
        Observations in control group627627627627627627627627625626
        Observations in treatment group637637637637637637637637636637
        Mean in control group0.2010.1160.0320.0380.0880.1440.0780.0085.9062.851
        Mean in treatment group0.2420.1550.0300.0300.1020.1880.0770.0137.8844.666
        Conditional mean in control group        29.76623.182
        Conditional mean in treatment group        32.77127.519
    • Notes: Estimates of program impact on work by children aged 10–14 from eligible households in the 12 months prior to the interview. Standard errors are clustered at the village level. Conditional means are means conditional on positive days worked or positive days worked for pay outside own household.

    • ↵* p < 0.1,

    • ↵** p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Pantawid Program Impact on Mutually Exclusive Combinations of Work and Schooling

     Mutually Exclusive Combinations 
    In School Only
    (1)
    In Work Only
    (2)
    In School and in Work
    (3)
    Neither in School nor in Work
    (4)
    Worked While School Was in Session
    (5)
    OLS only controlling for municipality and child age−0.003
    (0.031)
    −0.010
    (0.012)
    0.047*
    (0.027)
    −0.034**
    (0.015)
    0.031
    (0.022)
    Additional information:
        Number of observations1,2641,2641,2641,2641,252
        Observations in control group627627627627623
        Observations in treatment group637637637637629
        Mean in control group0.7240.0380.1630.0750.087
        Mean in treatment group0.7160.0280.2140.0420.119
    • Notes: Estimates of program impact on mutually exclusive combinations of work in the 12 months prior to the interview and current school attendance for children aged 10–14 from eligible households. Here school refers to current school attendance and work refers to any work in the past 12 months. Standard errors are clustered at the village level.

    • ↵* p < 0.1,

    • ↵** p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Heterogeneous Pantawid Program Impacts on Schooling and Work by Household Composition

     EducationWork Past 12 MonthsMutually Exclusive Combinations
    Attends
    (1)
    Attends Regularly
    (2)
    Any Work
    (3)
    Work for Pay, Outside Own Household
    (4)
    In School Only
    (5)
    In Work Only
    (6)
    In School and in Work
    (7)
    Neither in School nor in Work
    (8)
    Panel A: Heterogeneous Effects on Core Sample (10–14), by Older Siblings
    No siblings aged 15–170.038
    (0.026)
    0.033
    (0.033)
    0.033
    (0.042)
    0.019
    (0.037)
    −0.004
    (0.043)
    −0.015
    (0.018)
    0.048
    (0.037)
    −0.029
    (0.020)
    One or more siblings aged 15–170.040
    (0.029)
    0.138***
    (0.035)
    0.067**
    (0.033)
    0.085***
    (0.032)
    −0.030
    (0.040)
    0.003
    (0.014)
    0.063*
    (0.033)
    −0.037
    (0.024)
    Number of observations:
        P-value F-test (impact no siblings = impact siblings)0.9020.0050.6170.1510.7160.4910.4090.246
        Number of observations1,1931,1931,2121,2121,2121,2121,2121,212
        Mean in control group, no siblings0.8910.7580.2110.0910.7120.0400.1710.077
        Mean in treatment group, siblings0.9290.8880.2470.1480.7070.0340.2130.046
        Mean in control group, one or more siblings0.8760.8410.1900.0910.7430.0360.1540.067
        Mean in treatment group, one or more siblings0.9160.8680.2310.1220.7320.0200.2100.037
    Panel B: Heterogeneous Effects on Core Sample (10–14), by Eligible Siblings
    No enrolled siblings aged 6–140.342**
    (0.131)
    0.264*
    (0.135)
    −0.075
    (0.103)
    −0.077
    (0.092)
    0.275**
    (0.128)
    −0.154
    (0.098)
    0.079
    (0.063)
    −0.200*
    (0.117)
    One or two enrolled siblings aged 6–140.007
    (0.022)
    0.066**
    (0.031)
    0.068**
    (0.033)
    0.071**
    (0.028)
    −0.065*
    (0.033)
    0.003
    (0.014)
    0.064**
    (0.032)
    −0.003
    (0.017)
    Three or more enrolled siblings aged 6–14−0.005
    (0.015)
    0.044*
    (0.026)
    0.027
    (0.047)
    0.051*
    (0.031)
    −0.016
    (0.046)
    0.014
    (0.009)
    0.013
    (0.047)
    −0.010
    (0.011)
    Number of observations:
        P-value F-test (impact 0 siblings = impact 1 or 2 siblings)0.0110.1470.1870.1170.0110.1150.8410.094
        P-value F-test (impact 0 siblings = impact 3+ siblings)0.0090.1070.3490.1960.0310.0940.3990.104
        P-value F-test (impact 1 or 2 siblings = 3+ impact siblings)0.6510.5680.4500.6260.3670.5010.3390.709
        Number of observations1,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,2641,264
        Mean in control group, no enrolled siblings0.2960.2960.2800.2000.2600.2400.0400.460
        Mean in treatment group, enrolled siblings0.6330.5710.2170.1300.5220.0870.1300.261
        Mean in control group, one or two enrolled siblings0.9030.8010.1930.0840.7490.0320.1610.058
        Mean in treatment group, one or two enrolled siblings0.9120.8700.2390.1440.7060.0340.2060.055
        Mean in control group, three or more enrolled siblings0.9680.8810.1960.0780.7870.0040.1910.017
        Mean in treatment group, three or more enrolled siblings0.9610.9170.2470.1390.7430.0170.2290.010
    • Notes: Estimates of heterogeneous program impact on work by children aged 10–14 from eligible households. Only municipality and child age fixed effects are included. Standard errors are clustered at the village level.

    • ↵* p < 0.1,

    • ↵** p < 0.05,

    • ↵*** p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Pantawid Program Impact on Other Economic Activities of Beneficiary Households

     Household Level, Past 12 Months Any Household Members Involved in:Adult Level, Past Seven Days
    Farming
    (1)
    Non-Farm Business
    (2)
    Fishing
    (3)
    Worked
    (4)
    Worked for Private Household or Establishment
    (5)
    Worked for Government
    (6)
    Self-Employed, Employer, or Worked on Household Farm or Business
    (7)
    OLS only controlling for municipality0.042
    (0.033)
    0.001
    (0.019)
    0.006
    (0.028)
    0.007
    (0.020)
    0.038*
    (0.023)
    0.007
    (0.007)
    −0.037
    (0.023)
    Additional information:
        Number of observations 8308322,4802,4802,4802,480
        Observations in control group 4224221,2511,2511,2511,251
        Observations in treatment group 4084101,2291,2291,2291,229
        Mean in control group0.6080.0770.1340.6270.2950.0230.291
        Mean in treatment group0.6680.0750.1230.6350.3330.0280.256
    • Notes: Estimates of program impact on household- and adult-level economic activities. Sample restricted to eligible households with children aged 10–14. Standard errors are clustered at the village level.

    • ↵* p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Pantawid Program Impact on Household Expenditure

     Log per Capita Expenditure
    (1)
    Log per Capita Food Expenditure
    (2)
    Log per Capita Medical Expenditure
    (3)
    Log per Capita Education Expenditure
    (4)
    Log per Capita Alcohol and Tobacco Expenditure
    (5)
    Log per Capita Savings
    (6)
    OLS only controlling for municipality0.005
    (0.043)
    −0.042
    (0.044)
    0.178
    (0.191)
    0.221
    (0.153)
    −0.079
    (0.081)
    0.169
    (0.184)
    Additional information:
        Number of observations833833830830833822
        Observations in control group422422422421422415
        Observations in treatment group411411408409411407
        Mean in control group9.3578.9172.9694.4531.087−0.666
        Mean in treatment group9.3458.8593.1084.6520.988−0.551
    • Notes: Estimates of program impact on household expenditure or savings. Sample restricted to eligible households with children aged 10–14. Standard errors are clustered at the village level. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Prospera Program Impact on Education and Work Outcomes

     EducationWork Past WeekMutually Exclusive Combinations
    Attends
    (1)
    Attends Regularly
    (2)
    Any Work
    (3)
    Work for Pay
    (4)
    In School Only
    (5)
    In Work Only
    (6)
    In School and in Work
    (7)
    Neither in School nor in Work
    (8)
    OLS only controlling for municipality and child age0.058***
    (0.012)
    0.058***
    (0.014)
    −0.009
    (0.007)
    −0.010***
    (0.004)
    0.053***
    (0.012)
    −0.014***
    (0.004)
    0.005
    (0.006)
    −0.044***
    (0.010)
    Additional information:
        Number of observations10,82110,80510,88610,86710,77410,77410,77410,774
        Observations in control group, boys4,1424,1354,1774,1714,1214,1214,1214,121
        Observations in treatment group, boys6,6796,6706,7096,6966,6536,6536,6536,653
        Mean in control group, boys0.8410.8050.0510.0280.8270.0350.0150.124
        Mean in treatment group, boys0.9000.8630.0420.0180.8800.0210.0200.079
    • Notes: Estimates of Prospera program impact on education and work outcomes of children aged 10–14 from eligible households. Standard errors are clustered at the level of localities.

    • * p < 0.1,

    • ** p < 0.05,

    • ↵*** p < 0.01.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • Free alternate access to The Journal of Human Resources supplementary materials is available at https://uwpress.wisc.edu/journals/journals/jhr-supplementary.html

    • JHRv54n02_article08_deHoopFriedmanKandpalRosati_OnlineApp.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Human Resources: 54 (2)
Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 54, Issue 2
31 Mar 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Human Resources.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Child Schooling and Child Work in the Presence of a Partial Education Subsidy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Human Resources
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Human Resources web site.
Citation Tools
Child Schooling and Child Work in the Presence of a Partial Education Subsidy
Jacobus de Hoop, Jed Friedman, Eeshani Kandpal, Furio C. Rosati
Journal of Human Resources Mar 2019, 54 (2) 503-531; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.54.2.0317.8627R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Child Schooling and Child Work in the Presence of a Partial Education Subsidy
Jacobus de Hoop, Jed Friedman, Eeshani Kandpal, Furio C. Rosati
Journal of Human Resources Mar 2019, 54 (2) 503-531; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.54.2.0317.8627R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • I. Introduction
    • II. Schooling and Child Work Decisions in the Presence of a Subsidy
    • III. Background and Study Context
    • IV. Data and Methods
    • V. Results
    • VI. Discussion and Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • School Construction and Intergenerational Human Capital
  • Negative Supply Shocks and Delayed Health Care
  • Juggling Priorities
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • C93
  • I21
  • J22
  • O22
UW Press logo

© 2026 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire