Skip to main content

Table 5 Effect of food-for-work participation on dietary diversity-Binary treatment

From: Implications of food-for-work programs for consumption and production diversity: Evidence from the Tigray Region of Ethiopia

 

Fixed effects

Random effects

DIDb

Model 1A

Model 1B

Model 1C

Food-for-work participant (0/1)

0.86***

0.56***

0.68***

(0.24)

(0.20)

(0.24)

Age of household head (years)

− 0.02

− 0.02**

− 0.06**

(0.02)

(0.01)

(0.02)

Female-headed household (0/1)

− 0.15

− 0.43

− 0.32

(0.47)

(0.28)

(0.49)

Education of head (0/1)

0.96**

0.72***

0.72

(0.37)

(0.24)

(0.45)

Adult female labor (#)

0.28*

0.34***

0.39*

(0.17)

(0.12)

(0.20)

Adult male labor (#)

0.11

0.21**

0.20

(0.15)

(0.10)

(0.17)

Children (#)

0.18

0.15**

0.23**

(0.11)

(0.08)

(0.12)

Land area owned (Tsimdi)a

0.03

0.16***

0.03

(0.05)

(0.03)

(0.06)

Livestock owned (TLUs)

0.01

0.13***

− 0.01

(0.05)

(0.04)

(0.07)

Off-farm income (0/1)

0.28

0.43**

0.33

(0.23)

(0.20)

(0.26)

2003

− 1.27***

− 1.08***

 

(0.29)

(0.27)

 

2006

0.61**

0.75***

3.24***

(0.30)

(0.27)

(0.46)

2010

1.13***

1.22***

2.18***

(0.29)

(0.26)

(0.43)

Zone 2

 

− 0.82**

 
 

(0.33)

 

Zone 3

 

− 0.27

 
 

(0.34)

 

Zone 4

 

− 0.43

 
 

(0.34)

 

Zone 5

 

− 1.49**

 
 

(0.58)

 

Constant

13.66***

12.87***

− 1.39***

(1.10)

(0.71)

(0.31)

Number of obs.

1426

1426

912

Number of groups

514

514

371

R2 (overall)

0.14

0.20

0.14

  1. Standard errors in parentheses. * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. a1 Tsimdi = 0.25 hectare; Hausman test (χ2 = 31.8, p-value = 0.003); bIn DID model, standard errors are clustered by household ID