Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Behrman, J. R., Gallardo-Garcıa, J., Parker, S. W., Todd, P. E., & Velez-Grajales, V. (2012). Are conditional cash transfers effective in urban areas? Evidence from Mexico. Education Economics, 20(3), 233-259.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Mexico’s conditional cash transfer program (PROGRESA/Oportunidades) on school enrollment and employment in paid activities for children ages 6 to 18 in urban areas.
- The study used a nonexperimental design to evaluate schooling and work outcomes from PROGRESA/Oportunidades program 1 and 2 years after implementation in urban areas.
- The study found that PROGRESA/Oportunidades was significantly related to reduced labor rates for boys who were 12-14 in the first and second year, and girls ages 15 to 18 in the first year. The program was also significantly related to an increase in school enrollment for boys and girls.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this study is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups were similar before program participation. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to PROGRESA/Oportunidades; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
PROGRESA/Oportunidades
Features of the Intervention
The PROGRESA/Oportunidades program started in Mexican rural areas in 1997 and was modified and renamed Oportunidades in 2000. It has gradually expanded to urban areas. The program provides monthly conditional cash transfers to five million families. The cash transfer is conditional upon child school attendance and health clinic visits for family members. The amount of the cash transfer varies by gender and increases with the grade of the child. However, if a child repeats a grade twice, he or she will permanently lose the cash transfer.
Features of the Study
In this study, authors used the Urban Evaluation Survey that was collected in 2002 prior to the announcement and start of the cash transfer, and follow-up data 1 year in 2003 and 2 years in 2004 post-implementation. The study utilizes a difference-in-differences propensity score matching design, which compares the changes in the outcomes of interest for the treatment group participating families with the outcomes for a matched set of program nonparticipants from the comparison group. The data included 2,972 households who were eligible, 2,556 households who were eligible and did not participate, and 3,607 households who were eligible but resided in areas that were not implementing the program.
Findings
Employment/Child labor
- The study found a statistically significant relationship between PROGRESA/Oportunidades and a decrease in child labor. Boys ages 12-14 in 2002 had decreased labor rates of about 8 percentage points in year 1 and 12-14 percentage points in year two. The program reduced child labor for girls ages 15 to 18 by 11 percentage points in year one.
Education (School participation/enrollment)
- The study found a statistically significant relationship between PROGRESA/Oportunidades and an increase in school enrollment for boys and girls ages 8 to 11, with a 2 to 3 percentage point increase in enrollment for the 1 and 2 year program impacts.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors created a matched group of non-participating households to compare to PROGRESA/Oportunidades participating-households. However, the authors did not account for the outcomes at baseline, such as previous school attendance or child labor. Preexisting differences between the groups—and not the program/intervention itself— could explain the observed differences in outcomes.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not account for the outcomes of schooling and work at baseline. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to PROGRESA/Oportunidades; other factors are likely to have contributed.