I agree with Dan. In a ddition, it would be good to know whether finding spillover effects matter in an avbsolute sense and also relative to what everyone else had estimated the program effect was. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hopkins <dhopkins(a)fas.harvard.eduDate: Friday, Apr 28, 2006 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [gov2001-l] Preliminary Abstract "Spillover Effects on Health Outcomes: Evidence from the Randomized Evaluation of PROGRESA" This is a very nice abstract. Your substantive point is clear and important. Depending on your audience, and certainly for our purposes, you might highlight the methodological contribution a bit more clearly--precisely what methods are you bringing to bear on this problem? Also, the title could be more of a statement of the argument, rather than a statement of the topic. Best, Dan On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Sebastian Bauhoff wrote: Evaluation of PROGRESA large-scale poverty alleviation program in Mexico. PROGRESA provides cash incentives to eligible households if they participate in health education and maternal and child health care. Exploiting the fact that the program was assigned randomly across villages we find evidence for positive spillover effects on non-eligible children aged 0-5 for objective and subjective health measures. One year after the program began in 1998, non-eligible children in treatment villages were on average [XX] taller, [XX] heavier and [XX] per cent less likely to be anemic relative to non-eligible children in control villages. They were also [XX] per cent less likely to be reported sick. Previous evaluations have ignored these spillover effects and hence understate the program's benefits. _______________________________________________ gov2001-l mailing list gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l _______________________________________________ gov2001-l mailing list gov2001-l(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l