Unar, MishelSkoufias, EmmanuelGonzález-Cossío, Teresa2012-05-212012-05-212008-11https://hdl.handle.net/10986/6294The authors use the unique experimental design of the Food Support Program (Programa Apoyo Alimentario) to analyze in-kind and cash transfers in the poor rural areas of southern states of Mexico. They compare the impacts of monthly in-kind and cash transfers of equivalent value (mean share 11.5 percent of pre-program consumption) on household welfare as measured by food and total consumption, adult labor supply, and poverty. The results show that approximately two years later the transfer has a large and positive impact on total and food consumption. There are no differences in the size of the effect of transfer in cash versus transfers in-kind on consumption. The transfer, irrespective of type, does not affect overall participation in labor market activities but induces beneficiary households to switch their labor allocation from agricultural to nonagricultural activities. The analysis finds that the program leads to a significant reduction in poverty. Overall, the findings suggest that the Food Support Program intervention is able to relax the binding liquidity constraints faced by poor agricultural households, and thus increases both equity and efficiency.CC BY 3.0 IGOADULT FEMALESADULT MALESAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIESAGRICULTURAL ECONOMICSAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONAGRICULTUREBASIC FOOD BASKETBASIC HEALTHBASIC NEEDSBENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDSCALORIES PER DAYCASH INCOMECASH TRANSFER PROGRAMCASH TRANSFER PROGRAMSCASH TRANSFERSCEREALSCHILD NUTRITIONCHOCOLATECONSUMER PRICE INDEXCONSUMPTION AGGREGATECONSUMPTION EXPENDITURESCONSUMPTION NEEDSCONSUMPTION PATTERNCONSUMPTION PATTERNSCORNCOUNTERFACTUALDECOMPOSABLE POVERTYDEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITIONDEVELOPING COUNTRIESDEVELOPMENT ECONOMICSECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTECONOMIC REVIEWEMPLOYMENTFLOURFOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSFOOD BASKETFOOD BASKETSFOOD CONSUMPTIONFOOD CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURESFOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITAFOOD DISTRIBUTIONFOOD EXPENDITUREFOOD EXPENDITURESFOOD ITEMFOOD ITEMSFOOD POLICYFOOD POLICY RESEARCHFOOD POVERTYFOOD POVERTY LINEFOOD PROGRAMSFOOD SPENDINGFOOD STAMPSFOOD TRANSFERSFOODSFRUITSHEADCOUNT INDEXHEADCOUNT POVERTY RATEHEADCOUNT RATIOHOUSEHOLD CHORESHOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTIONHOUSEHOLD HEADHOUSEHOLD INCOMEHOUSEHOLD LEVELHOUSEHOLD SIZEHOUSEHOLD WELFAREHOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDRENIFPRIIMPACT ON POVERTYINCOMEINCOME TRANSFERSINCOME VOLATILITYINCOMPLETE MARKETSINDIFFERENCE CURVEINFLATION RATEINSURANCEINSURANCE MARKETSINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEIN­KIND TRANSFERSLABOR ALLOCATIONLABOR ECONOMICSLABOR FORCELABOR FORCE PARTICIPATIONLABOR MARKETLABOR MARKET ACTIVITIESLABOR MARKET PROGRAMSLABOR SUPPLYLIVING STANDARDSLOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDSMACROECONOMIC SHOCKSMEASUREMENT OF POVERTYMEATMILKNATIONAL FOOD POVERTY LINENONFOOD EXPENDITURESNONFOOD ITEMSNUTRITIONAL COMPONENTNUTRITIONAL STATUSPASTAPER CAPITA CONSUMPTIONPOLICY ANALYSISPOORPOOR COMMUNITIESPOOR HOUSEHOLDSPOOR INDIVIDUALSPOOR RURAL AREASPOORER HOUSEHOLDSPOVERTY COMPARISONSPOVERTY GAPPOVERTY INDEXPOVERTY LINEPOVERTY LINESPOVERTY MEASUREPOVERTY MEASURESPOVERTY RATEPOVERTY RATESPOVERTY REDUCTIONPOVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMSPRODUCTION SIDEPRODUCTIVITYQUALITY OF DIETREAL TERMSREDISTRIBUTIVE POLICIESREDUCTION IN POVERTYRELATIVE PRICESRICERURALRURAL COMMUNITIESRURAL HOUSEHOLDRURAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERSRURAL HOUSEHOLDSRURAL POORSCHOOL ATTENDANCESCHOOLINGSOCIAL ASSISTANCESOCIAL PROTECTIONSQUARED POVERTY GAPSTANDARD ERRORSSTARCHTARGETINGTRANSACTION COSTSTRANSFERS IN­KINDUTILITY FUNCTIONVEGETABLESVILLAGE ECONOMIESVILLAGE LEVELWELFARE PROGRAMWELFARE PROGRAMSWHEATWorld Bank10.1596/1813-9450-4778