Popular in Economics

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

Economic History

Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle

Boston College James E. Anderson

Economic Inequalities

Visions of Inequality

City University of New York Branko Milanovic

Economics

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Yale University Barbara Biasi

Economics

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Peterson Institute for International Economics Olivier Blanchard

Does Nutrition Provisioning Impact Educational and Learning Outcomes of Adolescent Girls?

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Development Economics

View more figures from Krea University

View the page of Narbadeshwar Mishra

Read the Study

While extensive literature is available on the impact of the early childhood nutritional food program, little is known about the nutritious food provision at a later stage. Narbadeshwar Mishra examines the causal effect of one such program.

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 20, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

It looks like you entered two periods instead of a specific text to summarize. Please provide the text you'd like to have summarized, and I will be happy to help!

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.245 --> 00:04.205
There is already a very big strand of literature,

00:04.205 --> 00:07.445
which says that if the child gets access

00:07.445 --> 00:09.245
to the early childhood nutrition,

00:09.515 --> 00:11.365
then the effects last long.

00:11.905 --> 00:13.485
And there is the spill of effect,

00:13.485 --> 00:15.045
whether it could be in terms of health

00:15.805 --> 00:18.345
or we talk about the education of the child,

00:18.345 --> 00:20.385
their cognitive level, their IQ level,

00:20.675 --> 00:21.905
their learning capability,

00:22.445 --> 00:24.665
or if we talk about the long-term impact,

00:24.665 --> 00:25.745
that is the labor market.

00:26.645 --> 00:29.665
So there are many studies which have already established,

00:29.765 --> 00:32.065
and it's kind of in economics, we call it

00:32.065 --> 00:35.945
as a stylized fact, that if the child is getting exposed

00:36.125 --> 00:39.785
to the nutritious food right from the beginning, then

00:40.565 --> 00:43.265
the overall development of the child would be very high.

00:44.205 --> 00:46.825
So what we do here is that

00:46.825 --> 00:49.145
what if the child has not received such development,

00:49.245 --> 00:52.945
and what happens if the child gets these nutritious food

00:53.085 --> 00:54.225
at a later stage of life?

00:54.775 --> 00:58.135
Does the child recovers at the same pace

00:58.635 --> 01:00.815
or there is some, some kind of lag,

01:01.235 --> 01:05.255
or the human capital formation is little bit low

01:05.575 --> 01:06.655
compared to the early stage.

01:07.075 --> 01:08.775
So that is where what we are seeing here,

01:08.835 --> 01:11.055
and our study is in the context of India.

01:12.035 --> 01:15.495
And the other thing, the major, the, the novelty

01:15.715 --> 01:20.015
of our paper is that the program which we are analyzing

01:20.195 --> 01:22.095
or evaluating is very unique.

01:22.435 --> 01:26.705
For example, the, the, the basic funder is that here is that

01:27.525 --> 01:30.745
you see many of the studies in the context of USA,

01:30.745 --> 01:32.785
where there is a school big first program,

01:32.975 --> 01:35.105
then there is a European big first program.

01:35.575 --> 01:38.785
Then in Sweden also there is the school feeding program.

01:39.125 --> 01:42.485
All these studies are establishing

01:42.545 --> 01:44.645
and where all the programs are

01:44.705 --> 01:46.765
or all the, the intervention is

01:46.765 --> 01:47.805
happening at the school level.

01:47.875 --> 01:51.285
That is, doesn't matter whether you are really in a need

01:51.285 --> 01:53.965
of food or whether you are coming from the backward society

01:54.025 --> 01:57.165
or the impoverished household, you'll get irrespective of

01:57.165 --> 01:59.445
what your background is or socioeconomic status is.

01:59.475 --> 02:02.685
Because once you're enrolled in school, you are entitled

02:02.745 --> 02:03.925
to get this food.

02:04.975 --> 02:07.635
But what we are seeing, so, so for example,

02:07.635 --> 02:08.675
let's say there are two boys

02:08.775 --> 02:12.155
or two children, one who is coming from the society.

02:12.375 --> 02:13.875
So he or she doesn't need

02:14.295 --> 02:16.155
to have this full school breakfast program.

02:16.725 --> 02:19.715
He'll come or she'll come in respect whether this program

02:19.785 --> 02:20.875
will be enrolled or not.

02:21.455 --> 02:24.195
But if there's other kid who are coming,

02:24.255 --> 02:25.475
who is coming from the backward

02:25.535 --> 02:27.755
or the very disadvantaged society, he

02:27.755 --> 02:30.475
or she's already making, struggling

02:30.655 --> 02:31.915
to make their ends meet

02:32.335 --> 02:36.115
and their family really need such kind

02:36.115 --> 02:37.595
of support from the government side.

02:38.455 --> 02:42.675
And that's where the school feeding program comes at a risk.

02:43.605 --> 02:45.095
Because the impact is,

02:45.155 --> 02:47.695
the impact which we are getting is not from those kids

02:47.915 --> 02:50.415
who actually need this program, who actually,

02:50.795 --> 02:52.535
but it is formed everyone.

02:53.245 --> 02:55.265
And that's where we take is a take home version.

02:55.865 --> 02:58.105
A take home version is something which is a targeted

02:58.105 --> 02:59.285
program program.

02:59.285 --> 03:00.885
It's really target those students

03:01.065 --> 03:02.525
who are really in need of that.

03:02.985 --> 03:05.405
And especially if you talk about the developing countries,

03:05.425 --> 03:07.245
for example, the subs, countries

03:07.785 --> 03:09.805
and countries like South Asian countries,

03:09.975 --> 03:11.245
India, Pakistan, China.

03:12.055 --> 03:14.765
There, the educational outcome is very low,

03:14.765 --> 03:18.245
especially when we go above the elementary education.

03:18.245 --> 03:20.965
There's a huge disparity, especially in terms of gender.

03:22.105 --> 03:24.805
So we also look at this study from the angle

03:24.865 --> 03:25.885
of the gender also.

03:26.345 --> 03:28.925
So what we do here is basically is that

03:29.645 --> 03:34.135
there is this program in India which was initiated

03:34.235 --> 03:37.175
or introduced in 2010 only

03:37.275 --> 03:39.375
to the girls age 11 to 80.

03:40.315 --> 03:44.695
So all the girls who are age 11 to 18 is entitled

03:46.025 --> 03:47.765
to receive the benefits under this program.

03:47.945 --> 03:49.885
And this program is called a sub law.

03:50.385 --> 03:52.805
So sub supply is a Hindi word, what's basically the meaning

03:52.805 --> 03:55.285
of sub supply, women empowerment, it's nothing

03:55.305 --> 03:57.765
but in simple templates called as a women empowerment.

03:58.745 --> 04:01.085
So there are multiple objective of this program.

04:01.225 --> 04:03.605
The first one to close the gender gap.

04:04.985 --> 04:08.285
So there, there is already a huge inequality based in terms

04:08.285 --> 04:09.405
of gender in India.

04:09.665 --> 04:12.965
So the boys are performing better in terms of education.

04:13.075 --> 04:14.285
It's not because they are getting,

04:14.685 --> 04:18.085
because inherent bias in the Indian society

04:18.085 --> 04:19.365
towards the sun preference.

04:19.745 --> 04:22.165
And there is another whole lot of literature that they want.

04:22.165 --> 04:23.765
Some they consider girls as a border

04:24.075 --> 04:26.445
because they have to marry it off, marry her off.

04:27.105 --> 04:29.285
So they prefer girls and they have another

04:29.285 --> 04:30.325
intervention to stop that.

04:30.585 --> 04:34.405
So the government of India thought that, okay,

04:34.475 --> 04:35.485
this has to stop.

04:35.505 --> 04:38.045
And that's why they rolled out this program in 2010

04:38.805 --> 04:41.125
focusing only on the girls age, 11 to 18.

04:42.145 --> 04:45.525
And I'll come in a subsequent time that why 11 to 18?

04:45.525 --> 04:47.965
What was the intention behind this? But this is the program.

04:48.025 --> 04:50.685
And in this program started in the phase manner

04:51.465 --> 04:53.405
in 2010 in certain districts.

04:53.405 --> 04:56.085
So some counties will get this program

04:56.145 --> 04:57.485
and some counties will not.

04:57.585 --> 05:00.525
So they wanted to see how this program is playing out,

05:00.555 --> 05:02.085
whether if it is successful,

05:02.665 --> 05:05.245
and then we'll pan it out, we'll extend it,

05:05.265 --> 05:06.805
and if there is some shortcomings

05:06.805 --> 05:08.205
or demos, then we'll improve on it

05:08.205 --> 05:09.925
and then later on we'll extend it.

05:10.665 --> 05:14.605
So, so that was the context and we explored this

05:14.825 --> 05:17.445
and then we see that what exactly is the impact.

05:17.945 --> 05:21.045
The the second part is like I Afo mentioned,

05:21.175 --> 05:24.605
there have been studied by German, by alderman,

05:24.785 --> 05:28.765
by Denberg in different parts of the countries, Western,

05:28.765 --> 05:30.285
especially in the western countries.

05:30.285 --> 05:31.285
For example, USA,

05:31.625 --> 05:33.965
the school big first program in Philippines.

05:33.965 --> 05:37.165
Also, some authors have studied lundberg in recent 2022,

05:37.715 --> 05:42.085
they see whether the school feeding program has any spill

05:42.145 --> 05:43.245
effect in the long term.

05:43.425 --> 05:46.815
And what they found is that those students

05:47.195 --> 05:48.655
who have received this program,

05:49.325 --> 05:52.095
they are earning 3% more than their counterpart.

05:53.145 --> 05:55.125
So that is a long-term impact of this program.

05:56.305 --> 05:58.315
But the, the, the way we place our,

05:58.315 --> 06:01.875
there have been very limited literature where we talk about,

06:02.415 --> 06:04.795
or where the studies talk about, okay, what if

06:05.545 --> 06:08.925
the intervention or the nutrition has been

06:09.125 --> 06:10.885
provided not from right, from the childhood

06:11.025 --> 06:12.805
or right from the beginning, but at a later state,

06:13.185 --> 06:14.765
do we get the similar impact

06:15.225 --> 06:19.165
or do the child like fails to come back to the school?

06:20.145 --> 06:21.685
So that is where we place our paper.

06:22.105 --> 06:23.965
So that is the dear of the ation.

06:24.085 --> 06:25.925
I, we, to the best of our knowledge,

06:25.925 --> 06:27.605
we do not see any credible study

06:27.665 --> 06:30.725
or any vigorous study that has been,

06:30.755 --> 06:32.445
implemented such kind of setting.

06:32.515 --> 06:35.765
Unfortunately in India we have found such setting.

06:35.905 --> 06:37.125
So we exported this.

06:38.505 --> 06:41.485
So coming to what exactly is the setting?

06:42.585 --> 06:44.525
Now, I'll, I'll briefly talk about the,

06:44.665 --> 06:46.045
the, the intervention.

06:46.265 --> 06:48.565
So this, this program bla program,

06:48.565 --> 06:52.285
which means the women empowerment, this came in 2010,

06:53.235 --> 06:56.285
late 2010 to be specific in October, 2010.

06:56.945 --> 06:59.245
And there the government,

06:59.305 --> 07:01.005
the federal government announced that, okay,

07:01.265 --> 07:03.685
in few districts we'll roll out this program

07:04.615 --> 07:07.485
where the girls age 11 to 18,

07:07.535 --> 07:10.125
which they call in their official document as,

07:10.295 --> 07:13.125
adolescent girls, because this is the adolescent age,

07:13.755 --> 07:15.845
they are entitled to get some benefits.

07:16.265 --> 07:17.485
And what are those benefits?

07:17.545 --> 07:20.725
Is that 600 calories worth of food they will get

07:21.185 --> 07:23.885
and 18 to 20 gram of protein also,

07:23.885 --> 07:25.205
they will get apart from that.

07:26.085 --> 07:28.845
Additionally, they will also get micronutrients 300

07:29.205 --> 07:30.245
grams per year.

07:31.185 --> 07:33.125
And like the standard program,

07:33.195 --> 07:35.285
they will also get the hundred days

07:35.425 --> 07:38.085
or the hundred tablets of iron and folic acid.

07:38.895 --> 07:41.035
So all these were included under this program.

07:41.695 --> 07:45.235
And the major intention of this program was one twofold.

07:45.415 --> 07:48.875
One to improve the health status of these adults and girls.

07:49.015 --> 07:52.915
And second, to bring these girls back to either the formal

07:53.095 --> 07:55.635
or education, informal education system.

07:56.295 --> 08:00.355
So this program was exclusively targeting these adults

08:00.375 --> 08:01.955
and girls, one, the gender lens

08:02.255 --> 08:05.395
and second to those girls who have out of school,

08:05.495 --> 08:08.515
who have left school because of many reasons, maybe

08:08.515 --> 08:11.645
because their family needs their support

08:12.065 --> 08:13.885
or their family thinks that okay,

08:13.915 --> 08:16.565
they have done their elementary education, now they need

08:16.565 --> 08:18.405
to take care of the siblings, they need

08:18.405 --> 08:19.845
to do household chores and tasks.

08:20.345 --> 08:21.725
So there are multiple reasons

08:22.065 --> 08:24.445
or in India, in some of the states

08:24.615 --> 08:27.445
where the thinking is still orthodox or superstition.

08:27.755 --> 08:30.445
What they think is that we need to marry her off just

08:30.465 --> 08:32.485
by completing that elementary education.

08:33.025 --> 08:36.005
So government of India thought that no, let's,

08:36.015 --> 08:38.365
let's aware them these households

08:38.785 --> 08:39.925
and this is how we'll aware.

08:40.395 --> 08:43.005
Another thing which is very,

08:43.665 --> 08:45.365
is very interesting about this study is

08:45.365 --> 08:46.565
that these households,

08:46.565 --> 08:51.165
especially if you think about the India's demographic, 65

08:51.165 --> 08:56.085
to 70% and only 30

08:56.145 --> 08:58.165
to 35% lives in the urban area.

08:59.565 --> 09:01.105
So these rural population,

09:01.105 --> 09:02.985
these rural households really struggle

09:02.985 --> 09:05.105
because to meet their daily needs,

09:05.105 --> 09:07.705
because they mainly depend on the agriculture.

09:08.045 --> 09:10.225
And you see how the weather conditions are

09:10.225 --> 09:11.625
happening in recent years.

09:12.485 --> 09:15.785
It is not, it is not like very certain everything

09:15.785 --> 09:16.825
is becoming uncertain.

09:17.485 --> 09:20.545
And that's where there comes the financial

09:20.545 --> 09:22.585
constraints for these households.

09:22.605 --> 09:25.865
And it becomes very difficult for them to send their kids

09:25.925 --> 09:27.865
to the school because they don't see

09:28.545 --> 09:30.225
anything extra output out of that.

09:30.735 --> 09:33.145
They think that it's better for them to help my children,

09:33.335 --> 09:35.105
help my kid and help me in the field

09:35.175 --> 09:36.545
instead of going to the school.

09:37.605 --> 09:40.905
So what government does is that to stop this

09:41.325 --> 09:44.345
or to to to inculcate this habit

09:44.565 --> 09:47.305
of parent towards the human capital formation is they say

09:47.305 --> 09:51.585
that, okay, let's do one thing will provide the food free

09:51.605 --> 09:53.985
of course to you or to your kids.

09:54.885 --> 09:59.225
And in that sense, at least if what parents does in response

09:59.245 --> 10:02.185
to this program, they say that, okay, I do not have

10:02.185 --> 10:05.225
to worry about the food of my child, especially the girls.

10:05.565 --> 10:10.185
So at least she could go to school, she could get the food.

10:10.525 --> 10:13.225
And in that way they start sending the food,

10:13.975 --> 10:16.105
they start sending their girls to the schools.

10:16.765 --> 10:18.665
And in in that, in, in that way,

10:18.855 --> 10:20.145
this program was rolled out.

10:20.145 --> 10:22.705
So they get take home Russian where these,

10:22.705 --> 10:24.305
these particular things were checked out

10:24.305 --> 10:27.105
and these girls were getting these food, okay?

10:27.765 --> 10:31.025
And sometimes the food was given as take home version

10:31.025 --> 10:33.385
that okay, you will get this amount of food worth

10:33.445 --> 10:34.625
of these quantities.

10:35.165 --> 10:36.905
And sometimes the food was also cooked

10:36.905 --> 10:39.265
and given to them via the centers.

10:40.095 --> 10:42.505
Okay? Now the other thing is

10:42.505 --> 10:45.825
that this financial constraint thing is lifted off from

10:45.985 --> 10:48.105
their households and slowly

10:48.205 --> 10:50.865
and slowly the girls start getting interest in the school

10:51.085 --> 10:54.385
and in some sense they will start coming back to the school.

10:54.455 --> 10:55.465
This was the notion.

10:55.885 --> 10:58.465
So either bring them back to the formal education system

10:58.845 --> 11:00.425
or the informal education system.

11:01.215 --> 11:05.185
This was the setting. Now the other part which I mentioned

11:05.185 --> 11:06.745
is that why 11 to 80?

11:07.405 --> 11:09.345
Why not like starting from the childhood,

11:09.685 --> 11:10.865
why exactly 11 to 80?

11:11.245 --> 11:15.985
So there is already a program in India which started in 1995

11:16.165 --> 11:18.465
and it became Pan India in 2005.

11:18.465 --> 11:20.385
That is called as a midday meal program.

11:21.775 --> 11:24.345
What exactly this program is, this program is similar

11:24.345 --> 11:28.185
to S'S school big first program where every child

11:28.285 --> 11:31.185
who is going to school or attending school will get a lunch

11:31.565 --> 11:32.585
in the school itself.

11:33.005 --> 11:34.785
It they, the lunch will not be given

11:34.785 --> 11:35.825
to them outta the school,

11:35.845 --> 11:39.265
but in the school to, so to be the beneficiary

11:39.265 --> 11:42.025
of this midday meal program, you have to be in school.

11:43.045 --> 11:45.705
So in that sense, this BLA program is different

11:46.385 --> 11:49.165
bla program targeted only girls so

11:49.165 --> 11:50.405
that there is a gender lens

11:50.785 --> 11:53.285
and exclusively to girls who are not coming

11:53.305 --> 11:54.605
to school are outta school.

11:55.465 --> 11:59.645
Second is that BLA program was targeted to 11

11:59.705 --> 12:04.645
to 18 years, but mid is school work program was from

12:04.645 --> 12:06.085
only six to 10 years.

12:06.085 --> 12:07.565
That is only till grade five.

12:07.945 --> 12:10.605
So there was a continuation for girls so

12:10.605 --> 12:12.325
that the girls can come back

12:12.465 --> 12:14.325
and they can revive their education

12:14.325 --> 12:15.485
and resume their education.

12:15.865 --> 12:18.405
And the, the gender gap in terms

12:18.405 --> 12:21.125
of education can be narrowed down if cannot be

12:21.125 --> 12:22.205
eliminated completely.

12:22.705 --> 12:23.885
So this was the notion

12:24.775 --> 12:28.775
and what we did here is that we exploit this variation

12:28.775 --> 12:31.215
because some of the counties got this program

12:31.355 --> 12:33.135
and some counties did not get this program.

12:33.675 --> 12:37.255
So we explored this variation and the gender variation

12:37.355 --> 12:39.455
and we use a SSI experimental design,

12:39.625 --> 12:41.535
which is a very standard approach

12:41.765 --> 12:43.535
because this is not an experiment.

12:43.635 --> 12:45.015
The program is already rolled out.

12:45.875 --> 12:50.135
And so we ex we did the Causa experimental design call

12:50.155 --> 12:51.375
as a defense in defense.

12:52.355 --> 12:56.175
And so what we see is that we were restricted,

12:56.175 --> 12:59.215
we restricted outcomes to the educational outcome

12:59.235 --> 13:00.295
and the learning outcomes.

13:01.355 --> 13:04.095
So by educational outcome, I meant the enrollment,

13:04.825 --> 13:08.295
which is the first order, which is the direct,

13:08.345 --> 13:10.735
motivation or the objective of the program.

13:10.765 --> 13:13.375
That is whether actually the program is working

13:13.395 --> 13:15.175
or not, whether the girl is actually coming

13:15.175 --> 13:16.375
back to the school or not.

13:16.715 --> 13:19.695
So if the girls have started coming back to school,

13:19.905 --> 13:22.255
we'll see there is a slowly increase in

13:22.255 --> 13:23.295
the enrollment of girls.

13:24.195 --> 13:27.415
And so we took that as a first order of outcome.

13:27.635 --> 13:29.495
The second was the learning outcome.

13:29.495 --> 13:31.615
That is a test score, the cognitive ability.

13:32.075 --> 13:34.015
So once they start coming to the school,

13:34.015 --> 13:36.735
they'll start enrolling, they'll start attending the school

13:37.355 --> 13:39.855
and slowly, slowly their cognitive ability will start

13:39.855 --> 13:41.095
improving and they'll start

13:41.345 --> 13:42.975
performing better in their school.

13:43.875 --> 13:45.575
So second was a learning outcome.

13:46.755 --> 13:50.205
Now coming to the other thing is that

13:50.235 --> 13:52.045
what is the mechanism behind this?

13:52.435 --> 13:54.125
What is driving? So the main results,

13:54.185 --> 13:57.405
and I'll discuss later on, so what, who which is connecting.

13:57.425 --> 13:59.965
So this nutritious food is being provided to this girl

14:00.385 --> 14:02.445
and now we are seeing the what is the impact

14:02.465 --> 14:05.485
of this nutritious food to the educational outcome.

14:05.985 --> 14:08.445
Now we want to see how these two are connected.

14:09.195 --> 14:11.005
Like what is the theory of change?

14:11.825 --> 14:15.325
So based on the literature, the the things

14:15.325 --> 14:17.605
that since the major part of this program

14:18.305 --> 14:21.165
was the nutrition food, the major chunk

14:21.165 --> 14:22.685
of this program was a nutrition.

14:23.145 --> 14:26.725
So what we thought that if actually this program is working,

14:27.075 --> 14:29.485
then we should definitely see a change in the

14:29.485 --> 14:30.605
anthropo outcome.

14:30.635 --> 14:34.125
That is the BMI weight four height, height, four age,

14:34.585 --> 14:37.245
and all other such outcome variables.

14:38.105 --> 14:40.885
The other thing also, we first look at their health status

14:41.105 --> 14:42.685
as a potential mechanism channel,

14:42.695 --> 14:44.005
which is driving these factors.

14:45.785 --> 14:48.565
The other thing is that the response to the household,

14:49.325 --> 14:50.745
so like I mentioned since

14:50.805 --> 14:54.005
The government is now exogenously providing this food

14:54.665 --> 14:56.285
to these potential households

14:56.285 --> 14:59.845
or potential beneficiaries, what the households are going

14:59.845 --> 15:01.845
to do now, they do not have

15:01.845 --> 15:04.845
to worry about the the health expenditure of their girls

15:04.845 --> 15:06.085
because already they are getting

15:06.085 --> 15:07.365
these food from the government.

15:08.065 --> 15:09.245
So some amount

15:09.245 --> 15:12.405
of money which they could have spent if the government would

15:12.405 --> 15:14.045
have not been sponsoring such food.

15:14.425 --> 15:16.605
Now they, they this amount is getting saved

15:17.875 --> 15:21.495
and how they are going to spend in this amount is, is

15:22.255 --> 15:23.515
in any way they can spend.

15:23.655 --> 15:25.675
Now what we want to see whether

15:26.565 --> 15:30.635
households are in any way spending this amount towards the

15:30.635 --> 15:31.995
education of the child

15:32.385 --> 15:35.075
because now they think that yes, I do not have

15:35.075 --> 15:37.115
to worry more about their health and education.

15:37.145 --> 15:39.395
Also health is already taken care about,

15:39.405 --> 15:40.835
taken care of by the government.

15:40.935 --> 15:44.955
Now I can spend or I can send these girls, my child,

15:45.095 --> 15:46.395
my daughters to the schools

15:46.495 --> 15:48.155
and I can take care of their education.

15:49.275 --> 15:52.335
And so this is the another channel what we see

15:52.435 --> 15:53.455
or what we exploit.

15:53.955 --> 15:55.135
We see that yes,

15:55.305 --> 15:58.695
there has been a significant improvement in the enrollment

15:59.205 --> 16:02.455
that the girls are literally coming back to school

16:02.515 --> 16:07.135
and they enrolling and the the impact is not very strong.

16:07.315 --> 16:10.135
It is like modestly five to 10% in the range

16:10.195 --> 16:12.055
of somewhere around 10%.

16:12.355 --> 16:15.295
So there has been improvement in education enrollment

16:15.915 --> 16:17.895
and the test is scores.

16:18.115 --> 16:20.335
How we measure, what is the instrument that we take

16:20.335 --> 16:21.855
for measuring the learning outcome is

16:21.855 --> 16:22.935
that the test is score.

16:23.875 --> 16:27.495
So we use test score as a proxy for the learning outcome

16:27.715 --> 16:30.375
and we see that yes, girls are able

16:30.395 --> 16:32.855
to perform better in terms of their learning outcome.

16:33.365 --> 16:37.535
They are able to read the basic English, they're like able

16:37.535 --> 16:40.775
to identify the letters, they're able to identify words,

16:41.235 --> 16:44.175
but not the higher level of English that is,

16:44.175 --> 16:46.895
they cannot read the full paragraph without any difficulty

16:46.895 --> 16:48.255
or without any single mistake.

16:49.075 --> 16:51.095
And same goes for the mathematics also

16:51.095 --> 16:53.295
that is the mathmatic skills, the basic maths.

16:53.995 --> 16:57.495
So what we see here is that they can identify the words,

16:58.125 --> 16:59.295
they can do subtraction,

16:59.395 --> 17:02.335
but not the division, not the higher level of maths.

17:03.265 --> 17:05.245
The other thing, what we see here is

17:05.245 --> 17:08.385
that the prob conjecture we had is

17:08.385 --> 17:11.505
that since this intervention is not right from the

17:11.505 --> 17:14.545
childhood, but it is coming in the beginning to some

17:14.545 --> 17:16.385
of the girls who have dropped off

17:16.385 --> 17:17.505
the school, there is a lag.

17:18.165 --> 17:20.745
So the human capital formation or the IQ level

17:21.165 --> 17:22.465
or the brain development,

17:23.135 --> 17:25.505
that would've been already happened in the early stage.

17:26.165 --> 17:29.145
And the same thing, we will not expect if the same

17:29.145 --> 17:31.025
intervention is given at the later stage.

17:31.935 --> 17:34.515
So that is why the improvement or the impact

17:34.855 --> 17:37.995
or the results which we are seeing is not very strong,

17:38.025 --> 17:40.115
very high like 50% or 60%,

17:40.135 --> 17:42.915
but somewhere close in the range of 10 to 15%,

17:42.915 --> 17:45.715
which is again good and very similar to some

17:45.715 --> 17:48.235
of the recent studies that have been done in other context

17:48.295 --> 17:50.325
of the country, especially in the developing countries.

17:51.945 --> 17:55.445
Now one may say the way we have our identification

17:55.445 --> 17:58.445
strategies, there are other factors also the confounding

17:58.445 --> 18:00.045
factor that the impact

18:00.065 --> 18:03.295
or the results which we are seeing is something else.

18:03.295 --> 18:06.215
Because at the same time, if you talk about the,

18:06.215 --> 18:10.895
if you see the Indian political economy during 2010,

18:11.845 --> 18:13.455
many intervention had happened.

18:13.515 --> 18:16.335
One of the intervention was right to education act where

18:16.865 --> 18:19.695
every child age six to 14 has

18:19.695 --> 18:21.615
to be given compulsory and free education.

18:22.555 --> 18:26.695
So that we control for, we did a battery of robustness test

18:26.795 --> 18:28.215
and that has been taken care of.

18:28.215 --> 18:31.575
So our results are net of these intervention.

18:32.635 --> 18:35.135
The second major confounding factor is that,

18:36.155 --> 18:38.895
and it happens in India p predominantly,

18:38.895 --> 18:40.495
and this is very common practice, is that

18:41.005 --> 18:44.175
because of the sun preference nomenclature,

18:44.175 --> 18:45.695
what payments might do is that,

18:46.075 --> 18:47.615
and this is a take conversion program.

18:47.615 --> 18:48.975
This is not a school feeding program

18:48.985 --> 18:50.935
where the girls will go and they'll get the food.

18:52.275 --> 18:53.565
What happens in this program is

18:53.565 --> 18:56.005
that girls will get the food outta the school.

18:56.945 --> 18:59.165
So if the food is given to the girls,

18:59.395 --> 19:01.405
what payments could do basically is that

19:01.955 --> 19:03.885
they could take the food from the girl

19:03.945 --> 19:07.005
and give it to their maybe younger son or younger siblings

19:07.185 --> 19:09.925
or the elder dot eldest elder brother

19:10.665 --> 19:14.085
or the other thing they could do if the girl is eating the

19:14.085 --> 19:16.805
food outside, they could reduce their food intake

19:16.805 --> 19:18.645
inside the home thinking that,

19:18.705 --> 19:21.245
my daughter has already taking the food inside, outside

19:21.625 --> 19:22.805
of because of this program.

19:23.305 --> 19:27.805
Now let's reduce her intake of nutrients and give it to

19:27.805 --> 19:30.005
or push it towards my son who is going

19:30.005 --> 19:31.805
to help me in my latest stage of life.

19:32.505 --> 19:34.165
So this is called as the intra

19:34.165 --> 19:35.445
households resource allocation.

19:35.445 --> 19:37.325
This is the big problem in our identification.

19:37.945 --> 19:42.565
So to welcome or to to smm this issue,

19:42.565 --> 19:44.765
what we did, we restrict our study

19:44.945 --> 19:46.965
or sample to only those households

19:47.495 --> 19:51.205
where only girls are there, only the daughters,

19:51.865 --> 19:53.245
and we get similar impact.

19:54.385 --> 19:56.045
The results are qualitatively similar,

19:56.185 --> 19:57.445
the impact is little low,

19:58.025 --> 20:00.205
but the results are qualitatively similar

20:00.205 --> 20:01.405
because of the sample size.

20:01.405 --> 20:03.805
Because sample size has greatly reduced signif

20:03.805 --> 20:05.245
substantially it has been reduced.

20:05.905 --> 20:09.845
And so we get qualitatively similar, which says that yes,

20:10.265 --> 20:13.125
our results are good and holding in all the conditions.

20:14.115 --> 20:17.125
Overall, if I need to summarize my paper, like

20:17.355 --> 20:19.405
what exactly is the paper all about?

20:19.625 --> 20:23.795
So one that yes, there is already a big chunk

20:23.815 --> 20:27.795
of literature which talks about if you give the food right

20:27.795 --> 20:30.595
from the childhood, the impact will last long

20:30.855 --> 20:33.395
and the impact will last long in several parameters.

20:33.395 --> 20:35.875
Whether it's health, whether it's education,

20:36.095 --> 20:39.115
or whether it's the labor market, the labor productivity,

20:39.165 --> 20:40.315
everything will improve

20:40.315 --> 20:42.475
because the brain doubles right from the early stage.

20:43.895 --> 20:46.715
But what if some children have not

20:46.715 --> 20:48.605
Been exposed to these intervention,

20:48.915 --> 20:52.245
have not received such food in the early childhood,

20:52.395 --> 20:57.325
what about them thus providing them these nutritious food at

20:57.325 --> 21:00.405
a later stage of life give a similar result or,

21:01.425 --> 21:03.645
or have they lost such stage

21:03.745 --> 21:06.405
or have they cell paths a stage that they cannot come back?

21:07.265 --> 21:09.565
So that is where, we are placing a paper

21:10.025 --> 21:13.085
and we conduct a study in the context of India,

21:13.255 --> 21:15.165
which is a great example

21:15.315 --> 21:18.245
because it is the world's most populous country

21:18.905 --> 21:21.725
and there's a huge gender disparity in terms of education

21:21.725 --> 21:24.885
where the child sex ratio is, is very high

21:25.755 --> 21:30.275
and the sun preference scenario is prevailing

21:30.275 --> 21:33.075
and is very ramped and many, many intervention

21:33.175 --> 21:35.595
and many such programs have been introduced by government

21:36.055 --> 21:37.195
to curb this practice.

21:37.335 --> 21:40.545
But still they, they, this this is happening in,

21:40.545 --> 21:42.185
especially in the rural regions.

21:43.085 --> 21:44.465
So this is one program

21:45.195 --> 21:48.105
which again makes the people aware

21:48.765 --> 21:52.425
and test whether this program is helping girls to evolve

21:52.485 --> 21:55.665
or to become, like self-dependent or not.

21:56.645 --> 21:59.865
So what we see here is that yes, if

22:00.565 --> 22:02.625
the food is nutritious, food is being

22:02.865 --> 22:05.585
provided to girls, they are, they,

22:05.585 --> 22:08.345
there is an improvement in the health educational outcome

22:08.555 --> 22:12.605
first that their VMI increases their rate

22:12.625 --> 22:13.685
for height increases.

22:14.225 --> 22:16.245
So there have been implement in their health status.

22:17.185 --> 22:20.925
Second, the payments has also been, have also been nudged

22:20.925 --> 22:23.045
because of the government they have started

22:23.645 --> 22:26.245
spending towards the education of their children

22:26.905 --> 22:28.765
and how we measure the health,

22:28.765 --> 22:33.015
the education expenditure, the the books, the book fees,

22:33.515 --> 22:36.375
the uniform fees, the transport fees,

22:36.915 --> 22:41.375
and the private tuition fees, all such fees of the children.

22:41.715 --> 22:44.695
We add them up and then we keep

22:44.835 --> 22:47.615
and call it as a child specific education expenditure.

22:47.995 --> 22:50.855
So we get the data for every child,

22:50.955 --> 22:53.415
how much the parents are spending towards the

22:53.415 --> 22:54.575
education of every child.

22:55.275 --> 22:57.775
So we see that this educational expenditure,

22:57.955 --> 22:59.935
the payments have started increasing this

22:59.935 --> 23:01.335
expenditure for the culture.

23:02.235 --> 23:06.375
So the government in some sense has been successful in

23:06.495 --> 23:07.535
nudging the payments also

23:07.535 --> 23:11.265
because this financial constraint has been taken care of,

23:11.445 --> 23:12.505
at least to some extent.

23:12.935 --> 23:16.545
Okay? So now they're not worrying much and

23:16.665 --> 23:18.345
because of these, their health is better

23:19.045 --> 23:22.985
and their financial situation has become better.

23:23.485 --> 23:25.225
Now the girls have started going to school,

23:25.375 --> 23:26.545
they've started studying

23:26.925 --> 23:29.785
and their cognitive ability has improved.

23:30.725 --> 23:32.585
And slowly, slowly we are going to also see,

23:32.725 --> 23:35.105
extend the paper, seeing the labor market outcomes.

23:35.125 --> 23:36.465
So what if now, now

23:36.465 --> 23:39.945
because they are more educated relatively, so

23:39.945 --> 23:41.665
what if they're performing better?

23:42.165 --> 23:46.755
Are they earning better? So that is, that is the whole,

23:46.755 --> 23:47.955
this paper is all about.

23:47.975 --> 23:49.555
And then we did, many checks

23:49.555 --> 23:51.675
because there are many confounding factors also.

23:51.695 --> 23:52.915
And then we take care of this,

23:52.935 --> 23:55.075
but our results hold in all the situation

23:55.775 --> 23:59.645
and we use a host a whole lot of data sets.

23:59.905 --> 24:02.125
The one is the National Sample Survey Organization,

24:02.865 --> 24:05.605
the other is the NFHS,

24:05.605 --> 24:07.245
that is the National Family health survey

24:07.505 --> 24:08.845
for measuring the health outcome.

24:09.435 --> 24:12.325
Then we use AER annual status education report

24:12.425 --> 24:14.685
for measuring the learning outcome, the test scores.

24:15.115 --> 24:17.565
Then we did the analysis at the district level also

24:17.905 --> 24:19.525
to see the district level.

24:19.825 --> 24:21.965
So the results are watertight.

24:22.545 --> 24:24.805
So we are getting the consistent results.

24:25.425 --> 24:29.195
So, and fortunately what we see here,

24:29.295 --> 24:32.555
the last bit of this paper is that what we see here is

24:32.555 --> 24:33.755
that the impact

24:33.855 --> 24:37.915
or the effect of this program is very directly proportional

24:37.915 --> 24:39.155
to the time of access.

24:39.655 --> 24:41.835
So what do I mean by that?

24:41.855 --> 24:45.635
Is this the girl child who has received this program

24:46.375 --> 24:48.395
as early, the impact is higher.

24:49.565 --> 24:52.465
So for example, if the girls, the program came in 2010

24:52.765 --> 24:54.785
and the girl child received the program

24:55.005 --> 24:59.185
or became eligible for the program in 2010 itself, there

25:00.005 --> 25:04.185
the impact is higher if the girl child is 17 years

25:04.205 --> 25:05.265
old in 2010.

25:05.365 --> 25:07.265
So she's eligible for only one year more

25:07.265 --> 25:09.145
because the program is 11 to 80.

25:09.805 --> 25:12.065
So there the, the impact is not that much.

25:12.975 --> 25:16.235
So that means the more nutritious food she get,

25:16.775 --> 25:18.355
the better she performs.

25:18.525 --> 25:22.035
There is a high probability of she and enrolling into school

25:22.415 --> 25:25.515
and performing better in school than the girl

25:25.815 --> 25:28.075
who has exposed, who has been exposed

25:28.075 --> 25:29.355
to the program relatively less.

25:29.935 --> 25:32.355
So again, this comes back to the stylist factor

25:32.355 --> 25:35.475
that we should give such intervention right from the

25:35.475 --> 25:38.235
beginning because the time matters.

25:38.775 --> 25:39.795
The number of times

25:40.055 --> 25:42.155
or the number of years the girl is exposed to the program.

25:42.535 --> 25:45.595
So this comes back to the stylist fact that such kind

25:45.595 --> 25:50.035
of intervention helps a lot if these intervention given

25:50.725 --> 25:51.955
right from the early childhood

25:52.615 --> 25:54.945
because of the world development of the children.

00:00 - There is already a very big strand of literature, which says that if the child gets access to the early childhood nutrition, then the effects last long. And there is the spill of effect, whether it could be in terms of health

00:15 - or we talk about the education of the child, their cognitive level, their IQ level, their learning capability, or if we talk about the long-term impact, that is the labor market. So there are many studies which have already established, and it's kind of in economics, we call it as a stylized fact, that if the child is getting exposed to the nutritious food right from the beginning, then the overall development of the child would be very high.

00:44 - So what we do here is that what if the child has not received such development, and what happens if the child gets these nutritious food at a later stage of life? Does the child recovers at the same pace or there is some, some kind of lag, or the human capital formation is little bit low compared to the early stage. So that is where what we are seeing here, and our study is in the context of India.

01:12 - And the other thing, the major, the, the novelty of our paper is that the program which we are analyzing or evaluating is very unique. For example, the, the, the basic funder is that here is that you see many of the studies in the context of USA, where there is a school big first program, then there is a European big first program. Then in Sweden also there is the school feeding program. All these studies are establishing and where all the programs are

01:44 - or all the, the intervention is happening at the school level. That is, doesn't matter whether you are really in a need of food or whether you are coming from the backward society or the impoverished household, you'll get irrespective of what your background is or socioeconomic status is. Because once you're enrolled in school, you are entitled to get this food. But what we are seeing, so, so for example, let's say there are two boys

02:08 - or two children, one who is coming from the society. So he or she doesn't need to have this full school breakfast program. He'll come or she'll come in respect whether this program will be enrolled or not. But if there's other kid who are coming, who is coming from the backward or the very disadvantaged society, he or she's already making, struggling to make their ends meet

02:32 - and their family really need such kind of support from the government side. And that's where the school feeding program comes at a risk. Because the impact is, the impact which we are getting is not from those kids who actually need this program, who actually, but it is formed everyone. And that's where we take is a take home version. A take home version is something which is a targeted program program.

02:59 - It's really target those students who are really in need of that. And especially if you talk about the developing countries, for example, the subs, countries and countries like South Asian countries, India, Pakistan, China. There, the educational outcome is very low, especially when we go above the elementary education. There's a huge disparity, especially in terms of gender. So we also look at this study from the angle

03:24 - of the gender also. So what we do here is basically is that there is this program in India which was initiated or introduced in 2010 only to the girls age 11 to 80. So all the girls who are age 11 to 18 is entitled to receive the benefits under this program. And this program is called a sub law. So sub supply is a Hindi word, what's basically the meaning of sub supply, women empowerment, it's nothing

03:55 - but in simple templates called as a women empowerment. So there are multiple objective of this program. The first one to close the gender gap. So there, there is already a huge inequality based in terms of gender in India. So the boys are performing better in terms of education. It's not because they are getting, because inherent bias in the Indian society towards the sun preference. And there is another whole lot of literature that they want.

04:22 - Some they consider girls as a border because they have to marry it off, marry her off. So they prefer girls and they have another intervention to stop that. So the government of India thought that, okay, this has to stop. And that's why they rolled out this program in 2010 focusing only on the girls age, 11 to 18. And I'll come in a subsequent time that why 11 to 18? What was the intention behind this? But this is the program.

04:48 - And in this program started in the phase manner in 2010 in certain districts. So some counties will get this program and some counties will not. So they wanted to see how this program is playing out, whether if it is successful, and then we'll pan it out, we'll extend it, and if there is some shortcomings or demos, then we'll improve on it and then later on we'll extend it.

05:10 - So, so that was the context and we explored this and then we see that what exactly is the impact. The the second part is like I Afo mentioned, there have been studied by German, by alderman, by Denberg in different parts of the countries, Western, especially in the western countries. For example, USA, the school big first program in Philippines. Also, some authors have studied lundberg in recent 2022, they see whether the school feeding program has any spill

05:42 - effect in the long term. And what they found is that those students who have received this program, they are earning 3% more than their counterpart. So that is a long-term impact of this program. But the, the, the way we place our, there have been very limited literature where we talk about, or where the studies talk about, okay, what if the intervention or the nutrition has been provided not from right, from the childhood

06:11 - or right from the beginning, but at a later state, do we get the similar impact or do the child like fails to come back to the school? So that is where we place our paper. So that is the dear of the ation. I, we, to the best of our knowledge, we do not see any credible study or any vigorous study that has been, implemented such kind of setting. Unfortunately in India we have found such setting.

06:35 - So we exported this. So coming to what exactly is the setting? Now, I'll, I'll briefly talk about the, the, the intervention. So this, this program bla program, which means the women empowerment, this came in 2010, late 2010 to be specific in October, 2010. And there the government, the federal government announced that, okay, in few districts we'll roll out this program

07:04 - where the girls age 11 to 18, which they call in their official document as, adolescent girls, because this is the adolescent age, they are entitled to get some benefits. And what are those benefits? Is that 600 calories worth of food they will get and 18 to 20 gram of protein also, they will get apart from that. Additionally, they will also get micronutrients 300 grams per year.

07:31 - And like the standard program, they will also get the hundred days or the hundred tablets of iron and folic acid. So all these were included under this program. And the major intention of this program was one twofold. One to improve the health status of these adults and girls. And second, to bring these girls back to either the formal or education, informal education system. So this program was exclusively targeting these adults and girls, one, the gender lens

08:02 - and second to those girls who have out of school, who have left school because of many reasons, maybe because their family needs their support or their family thinks that okay, they have done their elementary education, now they need to take care of the siblings, they need to do household chores and tasks. So there are multiple reasons or in India, in some of the states where the thinking is still orthodox or superstition.

08:27 - What they think is that we need to marry her off just by completing that elementary education. So government of India thought that no, let's, let's aware them these households and this is how we'll aware. Another thing which is very, is very interesting about this study is that these households, especially if you think about the India's demographic, 65 to 70% and only 30

08:56 - to 35% lives in the urban area. So these rural population, these rural households really struggle because to meet their daily needs, because they mainly depend on the agriculture. And you see how the weather conditions are happening in recent years. It is not, it is not like very certain everything is becoming uncertain. And that's where there comes the financial

09:20 - constraints for these households. And it becomes very difficult for them to send their kids to the school because they don't see anything extra output out of that. They think that it's better for them to help my children, help my kid and help me in the field instead of going to the school. So what government does is that to stop this or to to to inculcate this habit of parent towards the human capital formation is they say

09:47 - that, okay, let's do one thing will provide the food free of course to you or to your kids. And in that sense, at least if what parents does in response to this program, they say that, okay, I do not have to worry about the food of my child, especially the girls. So at least she could go to school, she could get the food. And in that way they start sending the food, they start sending their girls to the schools. And in in that, in, in that way, this program was rolled out.

10:20 - So they get take home Russian where these, these particular things were checked out and these girls were getting these food, okay? And sometimes the food was given as take home version that okay, you will get this amount of food worth of these quantities. And sometimes the food was also cooked and given to them via the centers. Okay? Now the other thing is that this financial constraint thing is lifted off from

10:45 - their households and slowly and slowly the girls start getting interest in the school and in some sense they will start coming back to the school. This was the notion. So either bring them back to the formal education system or the informal education system. This was the setting. Now the other part which I mentioned is that why 11 to 80? Why not like starting from the childhood, why exactly 11 to 80?

11:11 - So there is already a program in India which started in 1995 and it became Pan India in 2005. That is called as a midday meal program. What exactly this program is, this program is similar to S'S school big first program where every child who is going to school or attending school will get a lunch in the school itself. It they, the lunch will not be given to them outta the school, but in the school to, so to be the beneficiary

11:39 - of this midday meal program, you have to be in school. So in that sense, this BLA program is different bla program targeted only girls so that there is a gender lens and exclusively to girls who are not coming to school are outta school. Second is that BLA program was targeted to 11 to 18 years, but mid is school work program was from only six to 10 years. That is only till grade five.

12:07 - So there was a continuation for girls so that the girls can come back and they can revive their education and resume their education. And the, the gender gap in terms of education can be narrowed down if cannot be eliminated completely. So this was the notion and what we did here is that we exploit this variation because some of the counties got this program

12:31 - and some counties did not get this program. So we explored this variation and the gender variation and we use a SSI experimental design, which is a very standard approach because this is not an experiment. The program is already rolled out. And so we ex we did the Causa experimental design call as a defense in defense. And so what we see is that we were restricted, we restricted outcomes to the educational outcome

12:59 - and the learning outcomes. So by educational outcome, I meant the enrollment, which is the first order, which is the direct, motivation or the objective of the program. That is whether actually the program is working or not, whether the girl is actually coming back to the school or not. So if the girls have started coming back to school, we'll see there is a slowly increase in the enrollment of girls.

13:24 - And so we took that as a first order of outcome. The second was the learning outcome. That is a test score, the cognitive ability. So once they start coming to the school, they'll start enrolling, they'll start attending the school and slowly, slowly their cognitive ability will start improving and they'll start performing better in their school. So second was a learning outcome. Now coming to the other thing is that

13:50 - what is the mechanism behind this? What is driving? So the main results, and I'll discuss later on, so what, who which is connecting. So this nutritious food is being provided to this girl and now we are seeing the what is the impact of this nutritious food to the educational outcome. Now we want to see how these two are connected. Like what is the theory of change? So based on the literature, the the things that since the major part of this program

14:18 - was the nutrition food, the major chunk of this program was a nutrition. So what we thought that if actually this program is working, then we should definitely see a change in the anthropo outcome. That is the BMI weight four height, height, four age, and all other such outcome variables. The other thing also, we first look at their health status as a potential mechanism channel, which is driving these factors.

14:45 - The other thing is that the response to the household, so like I mentioned since The government is now exogenously providing this food to these potential households or potential beneficiaries, what the households are going to do now, they do not have to worry about the the health expenditure of their girls because already they are getting these food from the government. So some amount

15:09 - of money which they could have spent if the government would have not been sponsoring such food. Now they, they this amount is getting saved and how they are going to spend in this amount is, is in any way they can spend. Now what we want to see whether households are in any way spending this amount towards the education of the child because now they think that yes, I do not have to worry more about their health and education.

15:37 - Also health is already taken care about, taken care of by the government. Now I can spend or I can send these girls, my child, my daughters to the schools and I can take care of their education. And so this is the another channel what we see or what we exploit. We see that yes, there has been a significant improvement in the enrollment that the girls are literally coming back to school

16:02 - and they enrolling and the the impact is not very strong. It is like modestly five to 10% in the range of somewhere around 10%. So there has been improvement in education enrollment and the test is scores. How we measure, what is the instrument that we take for measuring the learning outcome is that the test is score. So we use test score as a proxy for the learning outcome and we see that yes, girls are able

16:30 - to perform better in terms of their learning outcome. They are able to read the basic English, they're like able to identify the letters, they're able to identify words, but not the higher level of English that is, they cannot read the full paragraph without any difficulty or without any single mistake. And same goes for the mathematics also that is the mathmatic skills, the basic maths. So what we see here is that they can identify the words, they can do subtraction,

16:59 - but not the division, not the higher level of maths. The other thing, what we see here is that the prob conjecture we had is that since this intervention is not right from the childhood, but it is coming in the beginning to some of the girls who have dropped off the school, there is a lag. So the human capital formation or the IQ level or the brain development, that would've been already happened in the early stage.

17:26 - And the same thing, we will not expect if the same intervention is given at the later stage. So that is why the improvement or the impact or the results which we are seeing is not very strong, very high like 50% or 60%, but somewhere close in the range of 10 to 15%, which is again good and very similar to some of the recent studies that have been done in other context of the country, especially in the developing countries. Now one may say the way we have our identification

17:55 - strategies, there are other factors also the confounding factor that the impact or the results which we are seeing is something else. Because at the same time, if you talk about the, if you see the Indian political economy during 2010, many intervention had happened. One of the intervention was right to education act where every child age six to 14 has to be given compulsory and free education. So that we control for, we did a battery of robustness test

18:26 - and that has been taken care of. So our results are net of these intervention. The second major confounding factor is that, and it happens in India p predominantly, and this is very common practice, is that because of the sun preference nomenclature, what payments might do is that, and this is a take conversion program. This is not a school feeding program where the girls will go and they'll get the food.

18:52 - What happens in this program is that girls will get the food outta the school. So if the food is given to the girls, what payments could do basically is that they could take the food from the girl and give it to their maybe younger son or younger siblings or the elder dot eldest elder brother or the other thing they could do if the girl is eating the food outside, they could reduce their food intake inside the home thinking that,

19:18 - my daughter has already taking the food inside, outside of because of this program. Now let's reduce her intake of nutrients and give it to or push it towards my son who is going to help me in my latest stage of life. So this is called as the intra households resource allocation. This is the big problem in our identification. So to welcome or to to smm this issue, what we did, we restrict our study

19:44 - or sample to only those households where only girls are there, only the daughters, and we get similar impact. The results are qualitatively similar, the impact is little low, but the results are qualitatively similar because of the sample size. Because sample size has greatly reduced signif substantially it has been reduced. And so we get qualitatively similar, which says that yes,

20:10 - our results are good and holding in all the conditions. Overall, if I need to summarize my paper, like what exactly is the paper all about? So one that yes, there is already a big chunk of literature which talks about if you give the food right from the childhood, the impact will last long and the impact will last long in several parameters. Whether it's health, whether it's education, or whether it's the labor market, the labor productivity, everything will improve

20:40 - because the brain doubles right from the early stage. But what if some children have not Been exposed to these intervention, have not received such food in the early childhood, what about them thus providing them these nutritious food at a later stage of life give a similar result or, or have they lost such stage or have they cell paths a stage that they cannot come back? So that is where, we are placing a paper and we conduct a study in the context of India,

21:13 - which is a great example because it is the world's most populous country and there's a huge gender disparity in terms of education where the child sex ratio is, is very high and the sun preference scenario is prevailing and is very ramped and many, many intervention and many such programs have been introduced by government to curb this practice. But still they, they, this this is happening in, especially in the rural regions.

21:43 - So this is one program which again makes the people aware and test whether this program is helping girls to evolve or to become, like self-dependent or not. So what we see here is that yes, if the food is nutritious, food is being provided to girls, they are, they, there is an improvement in the health educational outcome first that their VMI increases their rate for height increases.

22:14 - So there have been implement in their health status. Second, the payments has also been, have also been nudged because of the government they have started spending towards the education of their children and how we measure the health, the education expenditure, the the books, the book fees, the uniform fees, the transport fees, and the private tuition fees, all such fees of the children. We add them up and then we keep and call it as a child specific education expenditure.

22:47 - So we get the data for every child, how much the parents are spending towards the education of every child. So we see that this educational expenditure, the payments have started increasing this expenditure for the culture. So the government in some sense has been successful in nudging the payments also because this financial constraint has been taken care of, at least to some extent.

23:12 - Okay? So now they're not worrying much and because of these, their health is better and their financial situation has become better. Now the girls have started going to school, they've started studying and their cognitive ability has improved. And slowly, slowly we are going to also see, extend the paper, seeing the labor market outcomes. So what if now, now because they are more educated relatively, so

23:39 - what if they're performing better? Are they earning better? So that is, that is the whole, this paper is all about. And then we did, many checks because there are many confounding factors also. And then we take care of this, but our results hold in all the situation and we use a host a whole lot of data sets. The one is the National Sample Survey Organization, the other is the NFHS,

24:05 - that is the National Family health survey for measuring the health outcome. Then we use AER annual status education report for measuring the learning outcome, the test scores. Then we did the analysis at the district level also to see the district level. So the results are watertight. So we are getting the consistent results. So, and fortunately what we see here, the last bit of this paper is that what we see here is

24:32 - that the impact or the effect of this program is very directly proportional to the time of access. So what do I mean by that? Is this the girl child who has received this program as early, the impact is higher. So for example, if the girls, the program came in 2010 and the girl child received the program or became eligible for the program in 2010 itself, there the impact is higher if the girl child is 17 years

25:04 - old in 2010. So she's eligible for only one year more because the program is 11 to 80. So there the, the impact is not that much. So that means the more nutritious food she get, the better she performs. There is a high probability of she and enrolling into school and performing better in school than the girl who has exposed, who has been exposed to the program relatively less.

25:29 - So again, this comes back to the stylist factor that we should give such intervention right from the beginning because the time matters. The number of times or the number of years the girl is exposed to the program. So this comes back to the stylist fact that such kind of intervention helps a lot if these intervention given right from the early childhood because of the world development of the children.

Faculti AI can make mistakes