This PDF 1.3 document has been generated by DVIPSONE 2.2.2 http://www.YandY.com / Acrobat Distiller 7.0.5 (Windows), and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 24/02/2016 at 17:14, from IP address 137.110.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 256 times.
File size: 2.6 MB (19 pages).
but are being degraded at an alarming rate (MEA, 2005).
College, and University of Wisconsin AAE for helpful comments.
to disentangle because markets are relatively homogeneous.
in impacts is consistent with these theoretical predictions.
( just under 1%) per year during the 1990s (FAO, 2005).
whether deforestation rates are affected by the program.
transfer program in a large and diverse country.
We focus on forests as an environmental outcome of interest. Forests are a key local resource and global public good.
ambiguous (Pfaff et al., 2008; Chomitz, 2006).
production of forest products should rise as demand rises.
make two contributions to the existing empirical literature.
(such as beef), thus expanding their ecological footprint.
is improved, and hence shocks are spread over a greater area.
the measured treatment effect across infrastructure quality.
from itself and the η − 1 other members of the market.
+ στ − στ = .
forest reserves only in closed economies, not in open ones.
effects occur precisely where they are the most localized.
one-third of total income in these poor households.
Gertler, & Neufeld; 2008, Skoufias & McClafferty, 2001).
to determine who would receive payments.
program rollout with national deforestation data.
Source: National Forest Inventory of Mexico, 2000.
stronger if we exclude villages enrolled in and after 2000 or before 1998.
the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values across time.
are not sensitive to using lower thresholds.
deforested and the right the proportion of localities treated.
as a result of their lack of infrastructure.
average deforestation jumps to nearly .08%.
not depict a causal link between income and environmental changes.
rates of deforestation even in the absence of the program.
of the parameters in equation 1.
include the eligibility cutoff as a proxy for the treatment itself.
over a range of the marginality index from −1.2 to −0.9.
of the binary treatment variable.
other covariates across the eligibility criteria for the program.
of the index as well.
the probability of deforestation in the sample.
boundary between medium and low levels of poverty (−1.2).
Using other cutoffs should not indicate deforestation effects.
redefine eligibility at each tenth of the marginality index.
instruments and then show the impact estimation results.
the set of fuzzy discontinuity instruments on the full sample.
This file has been shared by a user of PDF Archive. Document ID: 00343031.