Figure 1
Map of main impact study sites. Silhouette represents boundaries of India for representational purposes only, with translucent and shaded areas, representing location of study states (in bold text) and districts, respectively.
Figure 2
FES’s Core Intervention Model (FES, 2021).
Figure 3
Propensity score density plots for treated & potential comparator villages.
Note: Secondary data was used for matching in all districts, save Chittoor. Primary data on FES’s targeting criteria had to be compiled for this district, given that many villages can fall under an official Revenue Village in the state this district falls under (Andhra Pradesh).
Graphs show kernel smoothed distributions for the propensity scores computed by district for both ‘treated’ and ‘untreated’ villages.
The area of overlap indicates where villages can be found between the two groups with similar propensity scores.
Figure 4
Propensity score density plots before and after matching for telephone survey villages.
Table 1
Sample sizes by district and respondent sex.
| OLD (‘TREATED’) VILLAGE | NEW (‘COMPARISON’) VILLAGE | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | |||
| Households sampled | 402 | 370 | 772 |
| Female respondent | 205 | 185 | 390 |
| Male respondent | 197 | 185 | 382 |
| Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh | |||
| Households sampled | 112 | 94 | 206 |
| Female respondent | 57 | 52 | 109 |
| Male respondent | 55 | 42 | 97 |
| Chikballapur District, Karnataka State | |||
| Households sampled | 54 | 50 | 104 |
| Female respondent | 27 | 21 | 48 |
| Male respondent | 27 | 29 | 56 |
| Bhilwara District, Rajasthan State | |||
| Households sampled | 132 | 123 | 255 |
| Female respondent | 68 | 63 | 131 |
| Male respondent | 64 | 60 | 124 |
| Pratapgarh District, Rajasthan State | |||
| Households sampled | 104 | 103 | 207 |
| Female respondent | 53 | 49 | 102 |
| Male respondent | 51 | 54 | 105 |
Table 2
Covariate Comparison—Respondents & Households in Matched Treated and Comparison Villages.
| TREATED VILLAGE | COMPARISON VILLAGE | DIFFERENCE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEAN (μ1) | MEAN (μ2) | μ1 – μ2 | SMD | |
| Respondent, Female (p̂) | 0.504 | 0.488 | 0.015 | 0.02 |
| (0.023) | ||||
| Respondent, Married (p̂) | 0.898 | 0.907 | –0.0095 | –0.018 |
| (0.022) | ||||
| Respondent, Farmer (p̂) | 0.788 | 0.767 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| (0.037) | ||||
| Respondent, Laborer (p̂) | 0.115 | 0.121 | –0.0034 | –0.013 |
| (0.029) | ||||
| Household has under 5 children (p̂) | 0.403 | 0.396 | 0.0069 | 0.004 |
| (0.036) | ||||
| Elderly headed (p̂) | 0.047 | 0.045 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| (0.014) | ||||
| Household, Hindu (p̂) | 0.935 | 0.992 | –0.056 | –0.305 |
| (0.034) | ||||
| Scheduled, Tribe/Caste (p̂) | 0.495 | 0.51 | –0.014 | –0.07 |
| (0.071) | ||||
| Respondent age | 39.136 | 39.345 | –0.2 | –0.024 |
| (0.97) | ||||
| Household size | 5.378 | 5.299 | 0.07 | 0.041 |
| (0.19) | ||||
| Number of children | 1.728 | 1.699 | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| (0.11) | ||||
| Number of productive age adults | 2.915 | 2.906 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| (0.12) | ||||
| Chi-2 test of joint orthogonality | 11.65 | |||
| p-value | 0.474 | |||
| N (households) | 402 | 370 | 772 | 772 |
| N (villages) | 40 | 40 | 80 | 80 |
[i] * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01; Standard errors in parentheses and clustered at village cluster level (matching unit);
Sampling weights used to adjust for deviations from target sample size of 10 households in some villages;
District fixed effect used (matching strata); SMD = Standardized Mean Difference.
Figure 5
Reported farm & off-farm related challenges experienced since onset of COVID-19.
With 95% confident intervals Sampling weights used to adjust for deviations from target sample size of 10 houscholds in some villages Results reported only if household reported on-farm or off-farm activities/income sources.
Figure 6
Expected changes in 2020 versus 2019 on-farm and off-farm income.
Figure 7
Coping strategies undertaken since beginning of 2020.
With 95% confident intervals Sampling weights used to adjust for deviations from target sample size of 10 households in some villages S = Stress category; C = Crisis category; E = Emergency category.
Figure 8
Density Plots for Weighted Livelihoods Coping Strategy Index (LCSI).
Sampling weights used to adjust for deviations from target sample size of 10 households in some villages.
Table 3
Overall & district comparisons of treated & comparison villages against various variations of LCSI.
| TREATED VILLAGE MEAN (μ1) | COMPARISON VILLAGE MEAN (μ2) | OLS (NO COVARIATES) | OLS (COVARIATES) | ROBUST REGRESSION | QUANTILE REGRESSION | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted LCSI (%) | 39.55 | 44.03 | –4.48** | –4.35** | –4.83*** | –6.90*** |
| (1.89) | (1.87) | (1.43) | (1.76) | |||
| LCS PCA Index | 1.51 | 1.69 | –0.18** | –0.18** | –0.16*** | –0.22*** |
| (0.079) | (0.076) | (0.058) | (0.070) | |||
| Raw LCS (21 items) | 6.89 | 7.57 | –0.68* | –0.67** | –0.59** | –1*** |
| (0.34) | (0.33) | (0.25) | (0.28) | |||
| Observations | 402 | 370 | 772 | 763 | 772 | 772 |
[i] * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05; Standard errors in parentheses with standard errors clustered at the village level for OLS models.
District fixed effects used in all models (strata used in village matching).
Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste; respondent’s age; household size; # of children; # of working age adults.
Sample weights to adjust for deviations from target village sample size (n = 10) used in all models, save robust regression.
OLS = Ordinary Least Squares Regression; LCSI = Livelihoods Coping Strategies Index; PCA = Principal Component Analysis.
Table 4
Results of mediation analysis evaluating candidate mediator variables.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDIATOR MEASURE | TREATED VILLAGE | COMPARE VILLAGE | CONDITION 2 | CONDITION 3 | DIRECT EFFECT | % MEDIATED |
| MEAN (μ1) | MEAN (μ2) | X ➔ M | XM ➔ Y | X – XM | VIA XM | |
| Enhanced commons resource access hypothesized mechanism | ||||||
| Any commons product collected in 2020 (p̂) | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.13*** | 0.798** | –5.28*** | –17.83 |
| (0.043) | (0.37) | (1.84) | ||||
| # of commons products collected in 2020 | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.1801 | 0.50 | –4.98*** | –11.14 |
| (0.11) | (0.32) | (1.80) | ||||
| Any common product sales in 2020 (p̂) | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.013 | 0.014 | –4.491*** | –0.31 |
| (0.019) | (0.03) | (1.88) | ||||
| More products collected in 2020 than 2019 (p̂) | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.015 | 0.150 | –4.623** | –3.33 |
| (0.024) | (0.24) | (1.81) | ||||
| Relied more on commons in 2020 than 2019 (p̂) | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.038** | 0.20 | –4.677** | –4.46 |
| (0.019) | (0.13) | (1.89) | ||||
| Enhanced access to safety net programs hypothesized mechanism | ||||||
| Estimated social safety net income, 2020 (INR) | 15,982 | 14,543 | 1439 | 0.263 | –4.74** | –5.87 |
| (1372) | (0.28) | (1.88) | ||||
| Estimated soc. safety net income dif. 2020 – | 530 | 1888 | –1358 | –0.006 | –4.47** | 0.12 |
| 2019 (INR) | (1489) | (0.091) | (1.90) | |||
| MGNREGS Income 2020 (INR) | 6274 | 5487 | 787 | 0.31 | 4.89** | –6.93 |
| (763) | (031) | (1.90) | ||||
| Observations | 402 | 370 | 772 | 772 | 772 | |
[i] * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01.
District fixed effects used in all models (strata used in village matching).
Y = outcome variable; X = treatment dummy; M = mediator variable; XM = variation shared by X and M.
Direct effect = X’s effect on Y independent of XM.