The Economic Lives of the Poor
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2007 · paper · Economics
Uses household survey data from 13 countries to describe the consumption, income generation, and market and infrastructure access of people living on under $1 or $2 a day. It closes by discussing some apparently anomalous choices.
Checked: PDF from blog.givewell.org, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
31 findings
Substance The text says the Udaipur survey 'was carried out in 2002 and 2003 in 100 hamlets of Udaipur', but Table 1's Year column gives '2004' for India - Udaipur.
- p. 2 para 4
The first was carried out in 2002 and 2003 in 100 hamlets of Udaipur
- p. 29 Table 1, India - Udaipur, Year
2004
- p. 2 intro
carried out in 2002 and 2003 in 100 hamlets of Udaipur
- p. 29 Table 1
India - Udaipur Banerjee-Deaton-Duflo 2004
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 1 note 1 calls this column 'the year the survey was carried out' (CPI adjustment 'between 1993 and the year the survey was carried out'). That makes Year the survey year, so 2004 conflicts with the 2002–2003 fieldwork on p.2. 2004 matches the citation year of Banerjee, Deaton, Duflo (2004). Only the authors can say which year was used for the deflation.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance The text says the ratio of over-51s to prime-age (21-50) 'tends to be between 0.2 and 0.3 in both the rural and the urban sample', but Table 2 means give ratios above 0.3 for most rural <$1 countries.
- p. 4 para 3
tends to be between 0.2 and 0.3 in both the rural and the urban sample
- p. 31 Table 2, <$1 rural
0.721778
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Computed from the Table 2 (<$1 rural) means as (women 51+ + men 51+)/(women 21-50 + men 21-50). Cote d'Ivoire 0.41, Indonesia 0.32, Mexico 0.35, Pakistan 0.32, South Africa 0.44. Guatemala (0.26) and Udaipur (0.26) do fall in the stated range. The paper does not say whether the ratio was computed another way, for example at household level.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance The text says 'In all 13 of the countries in our sample ... the average extremely poor household spent less than 1 percent on any of these forms of entertainment', but Table 3 (<$1 urban) shows Entertainment 1.2% for India - Hyderabad and 1.9% for Papua New Guinea.
- p. 5 para 4
poor household spent less than 1 percent on any of these forms of entertainment
- p. 32 Table 3, <$1 Urban, Entertainment
1.9%
- p. 5 Food and Other Consumption
spent less than 1 percent on any of these forms of entertainment
- p. 21 Why the Poor Don't Eat More
they also spend surprisingly large amounts on entertainment
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked on the Table 3 image, p.32. All rural <$1 values are at most 0.7%, but the urban Hyderabad and PNG values exceed 1%, and the text does not limit the claim to rural households. The second point raised (p.21 'surprisingly large amounts on entertainment') uses 'entertainment' broadly to cover televisions, weddings and festivals, which the earlier text discusses. That is a wording choice, not a defect.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.6 says that among rural households living under $1 per day, TV ownership 'in Nicaragua, the percentage is closer to a half'. Table 4 (p.33) gives 8.3% for rural Nicaragua under $1.
- p. 6 para 2
and in Nicaragua, the percentage is closer to a half
- p. 33 Table 4, <$1 Rural, Nicaragua, Television
8.3%
- p. 6 p.6
in Nicaragua, the percentage is closer to a half
- p. 6 p.6
57 percent of the rural poor households, respectively, have a radio and 21 percent and 19 percent own a television
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The sentence is explicitly about rural households under $1/day. The other figures in it match that row of Table 4: Udaipur radio 11.4, Nicaragua radio 59.3, Guatemala TV 20.3. Nicaragua TV in that row is 8.3%. Rural under $2 is 19.2%. The only Nicaragua cell near one half is urban under $2 (54.5%). The next paragraph's 21% and 19% also disagree with 'closer to a half'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.6: urban vs rural poor TV ownership '61 versus 10 percent in Peru'. Table 4 gives 62.4 vs 20.9 (under $2) and 46.6 vs 9.8 (under $1).
- p. 6 para 3
61 versus 10 percent in Peru
- p. 33 Table 4, Peru Television
62.4%
- p. 33 Table 4 Peru TV
Peru 78.8% 46.6% 9.8% 8.6%
- p. 33 Table 4, Peru
Peru 73.3% 9.8%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: In the same parenthesis, Indonesia (60 vs 33) and South Africa (38 vs 17) match the under-$2 urban/rural cells of Table 4 (59.9/33.2 and 38.3/16.5). The Peru pair matches neither poverty line. '10' fits rural under $1 (9.8). '61' fits no Peru TV cell.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.9: 'In 12 of the 13 countries in our sample, with the exception of Cote d'Ivoire, at least 50 percent of both boys and girls aged 7 to 12 in extremely poor households are in school'. Table 9 gives 30.7% for rural Pakistani girls 7–12 and 47.2% for rural Tanzanian boys 7–12 (under $1).
- p. 9 Investment in Education
with the exception of Cote d’Ivoire, at least 50 percent of both boys
- p. 38 Table 9, <$1 Rural, Pakistan female 7-12
30.7%
- p. 9 Investment in Education
In 12 of the 13 countries in our sample, with the exception of Cote d'Ivoire, at least 50 percent of both boys and girls aged 7 to 12
- p. 9 Investment in Education
at least 50 percent of both boys and girls aged 7 to 12 in extremely poor households are in school
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read from Table 9 (p.38), under-$1 rows. Rural Pakistan girls 7–12 are at 30.7% and rural Tanzania boys 7–12 at 47.2%, both below 50%, and neither country is Cote d'Ivoire. Restricting to urban rows does not save the claim: urban Pakistan girls are 65.8%, but the sentence is not limited to urban areas.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.10: 'In Peru, 69 percent of the households who live under $2 a day in urban areas operate a non-agricultural business'. Table 10 gives 70.3% for urban Peru under $2.
- p. 10 Entrepreneurship para
In Peru, 69 percent of the households who live under $2 a day in urban areas operate
- p. 39 Table 10, <$2 Urban, Peru
70.3%
- p. 10 Entrepreneurship section
In Peru, 69 percent of the households who live under $2 a day in urban areas operate a non-agricultural business
- p. 39 Table 10 urban <$2
Peru 70.3%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 10 (p.39) gives 70.3% for urban Peru under $2 and 63.2% for urban Peru under $1. Neither rounds to 69. The other countries in the next sentence (Indonesia 47.2, Pakistan 49.3, Nicaragua 51.5, quoted as 'between 47 and 52') match the same column.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.10 says "between 25 percent and 98 percent of the households who earn less than a dollar a day report being self employed in agriculture". In Table 6 (<$1, rural, excluding Mexico and South Africa) the lowest value is 37.2% (Cote d'Ivoire). 25% matches only Cote d'Ivoire's <$2 value (25.3%).
- p. 10 Entrepreneurship para
between 25 percent and 98 percent of the households who earn less than a dollar a day
- p. 35 Table 6, <$1 Rural, Cote d'Ivoire, Self-employed agriculture
37.2%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked Table 6 (p.35), rural <$1 column 'Self Employed In Agriculture': CdI 37.2, Guatemala 64.4, Udaipur 98.4, UP/Bihar 72.1, Indonesia 49.8, Nicaragua 54.7, Pakistan 72.1, Panama 69.1, Peru 71.7, Timor Leste 78.5. The minimum is 37.2. The upper bound of 98 does match Udaipur. 25.3 is the CdI figure in the <$2 panel. The page gives no other basis for 25%.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.11, about urban households under $2, says "20.5 percent in Peru" have multiple income sources. Table 6 shows 18.8% for urban Peru under $2 and 21.9% under $1.
- p. 11 para 1
20.5 percent in Peru
- p. 35 Table 6, <$2 Urban, Peru, Multiple sectors
18.8%
- p. 35 Table 6, urban <$2, Peru
Peru 8.8% 150 11.4% 61.9% ... 18.8%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked the Table 6 column 'Percent of HHs that receive income from multiple sectors' on p.35. The other figures in the sentence match the <$2 urban rows (Pakistan 35.5≈36, Mexico 23.6≈24, Nicaragua 8.7≈9, Timor 9.2≈9). Peru's 20.5 matches neither poverty line. Smaller point: the '47 percent' for Cote d'Ivoire and Indonesia is near the table (45.7 and 46.8) but not exact.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.11 says that in Guatemala "24 percent are self-employed outside agriculture" among the rural extremely poor. Table 6 gives 22.6% (and 18.5% under $2).
- p. 11 para 4
and 24 percent are self-employed outside agriculture
- p. 35 Table 6, <$1 Rural, Guatemala, Self-employed Other
22.6%
- p. 11 p.11
24 percent are self-employed outside agriculture
- p. 35 Table 6 Guatemala
Guatemala 36.7% 29 64.4% 22.6%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 6, p.35, Guatemala rural <$1 row: 36.7%, 29, 64.4%, 22.6%, 31.4%, 86.4%, 83.8%. The 65 and 86 in the same sentence match this row. The 24 does not match the row and does not come from rounding 22.6. The <$2 value is 18.5.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.13 says paid employees per business for those under $2 "range between 0.14 in rural Nicaragua to 0.53 in urban Panama". Table 10 (<$2) includes 0.06 (urban Nicaragua), 0.11 (urban CdI), 0.55 (rural Mexico) and 0.57 (urban Mexico).
- p. 13 Problem of Small Scale
range between 0.14 in rural Nicaragua to 0.53 in urban Panama
- p. 39 Table 10, <$2, Paid Workers
0.57
- p. 39 Table 10 <$2
Nicaragua 51.5% 0.06 1.40
- p. 13 Small Scale
the average number of paid employees range between 0.14 in rural Nicaragua to 0.53 in urban Panama. Businesses are operated on average by 1.38 (in Peru) to 2.59
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 10 (p.39), <$2 'Paid Workers'. Rural: CdI 0.26, Indonesia 0.17, Mexico 0.55, Nicaragua 0.14, Pakistan 0.25, Panama 0.39. Urban: CdI 0.11, Indonesia 0.23, Mexico 0.57, Nicaragua 0.06, Pakistan 0.36, Panama 0.53. The cited endpoints are in the table but are not its extremes, and the sentence explicitly covers rural and urban locations. The paper states no exclusion.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.13 says businesses are "operated on average by 1.38 (in Peru) to 2.59 (in Cote d'Ivoire) people". Table 10 has no 1.38 for Peru (1.42/1.40 under $2; 1.50/1.39 under $1), and Pakistan rural <$2 is lower at 1.30.
- p. 13 Problem of Small Scale
operated on average by 1.38 (in Peru) to 2.59 (in Cote d’Ivoire) people
- p. 39 Table 10, <$2 Rural, Pakistan, Paid + Unpaid
1.30
- p. 39 Table 10, Paid + Unpaid
1.42
- p. 13 p.13
1.38 (in Peru) to 2.59
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 10 (p.39), 'Paid + Unpaid', <$2: rural CdI 2.59, Indonesia 1.61, Mexico 2.00, Nicaragua 1.39, Pakistan 1.30, Panama 1.80, Peru 1.42; urban CdI 2.52, Hyderabad 1.72, Indonesia 1.70, Mexico 2.21, Nicaragua 1.40, Pakistan 1.41, Panama 1.53, Peru 1.40. The upper bound 2.59 matches. The lower bound matches no cell and is not the minimum.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance p.13 says outstanding debt among the rural extremely poor ranges "from 11 percent in rural East Timor to 93 percent in Pakistan". Table 8 (<$1 rural) shows Panama at 2.8% and India-UP/Bihar at 6.0%.
- p. 13 Market for Credit
from 11 percent in rural East Timor to 93 percent in Pakistan
- p. 37 Table 8, <$1 Rural, Panama
2.8%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 8 (p.37), rural <$1, 'Percent of HH with at least one Loan': CdI 30.5, Udaipur 66.3, UP/Bihar 6.0, Indonesia 11.6, Mexico 18.5, Pakistan 93.2, Panama 2.8, Peru 12.3, South Africa 39.6, Timor 10.9. Pakistan's 93 is the upper end, but Timor's 10.9 is not the lower end.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance P.18 says "The availability of a latrine varies from none in Udaipur, to 100 percent in Nicaragua", but Table 5 gives rural Nicaragua latrine access of 59.0% (<$1) and 63.9% (<$2); the highest rural value is Papua New Guinea at 95.2%.
- p. 18 para 1
to 100 percent in Nicaragua
- p. 34 Table 5, Rural Nicaragua, Toilet/Latrine
63.9%
- p. 34 Table 5, Toilet/Latrine, rural Nicaragua
59.0%
- p. 18 Infrastructure paragraph
The availability of a latrine varies from none in Udaipur, to 100 percent in Nicaragua.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked the Table 5 image on p.34. No latrine cell for Nicaragua (rural 59.0/63.9, urban 67.5/88.4) reaches 100%, and no rural latrine cell is 100%. The maximum is PNG at 95.2 (<$1). The 'below 5 percent' point raised in note 5 is judged under C053.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 11: Nicaragua 'Any Type' insurance printed as 0.0% while Health insurance is 5.5% (rural <$1), 7.6% (urban <$1), 7.2% (rural <$2), 19.4% (urban <$2).
- p. 40 Table 11, Nicaragua rows
Nicaragua 0.0% 5.5%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Table 11 on p.40. As printed, the 0.0% values sit under 'Any Type', which cannot be below the health-insurance share. The entries may have shifted from the Life column, or the value may be missing data shown as 0. Only the authors can say.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Footnote 6 (p.6) contains an unresolved cross-reference: '(viz footnote ? footnote 11?11)'.
- p. 6 footnote 6
viz footnote ? footnote 11?11
- p. 6 footnote 6
(viz footnote ? footnote 11?11)
- p. 6
viz footnote ? footnote 11?11)
Judge's note: The page image shows the placeholder text. The food-share and PPP-ratio argument it refers to is footnote 5 on p.5. Footnote 10 (p.15) is the last footnote seen in the article.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.7 cites '(Deaton, 2005)', but the reference list has no Deaton 2005 entry (only 1997, 2004, 2006 and co-authored works). Other citations also do not match the list: Morduch 1991 and 2005 (list: 1995, 2006); Fafchamps and Shilpi (2005) has no entry; Gubert and Fafchamps (2006) appears in the list as Fafchamps and Gubert (2005); Munshi and Rosenzweig (2004) vs list 2005; Pratham (2005) vs list 2006; Banerjee, Deaton, and Duflo (2005) vs list 2004; Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin (2005) vs list 2006.
- p. 7 para 2
dropped to virtually zero (Deaton, 2005)
- p. 7 para 2
(Deaton, 2005)
- p. 26 References
Deaton, Angus (2006)
- p. 21 p.21
Fafchamps and Shilpi (2005)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked reference pages 25–27 against the in-text citations, using the text layer for citation locations and images for pp.15–16. Deaton 2005 is absent, as is any Fafchamps–Shilpi entry. Several citation years differ from the listed entries. Only the authors can say which works were intended.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The text cites "Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin (2005)" (p.14), but the reference list entry is "Ashraf, Nava, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin (2006)" (p.25).
- p. 14 last line
Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin (2005)
- p. 25 References
Ashraf, Nava, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin (2006).
- p. 25 References
Ashraf, Nava, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin (2006)
Judge's note: The two years differ. There is no other Ashraf entry in the reference list.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Citation years do not match the reference list. "(Banerjee and Duflo, 2005)" on p.14 has the entry "Banerjee, Abhijit and Esther Duflo (2004)", and "Banerjee, Deaton, and Duflo (2005)" on p.19 has the entry "Banerjee, Abhijit, Angus Deaton, and Esther Duflo (2004)".
- p. 14 para 2
default is actually rare (Banerjee and Duflo, 2005)
- p. 25 References
Banerjee, Abhijit and Esther Duflo (2004)
- p. 19 para 4
Banerjee, Deaton, and Duflo (2005)
- p. 25 References
Banerjee, Abhijit, Angus Deaton, and Esther Duflo (2004)
Judge's note: On p.25 the only two-author Banerjee–Duflo entry is labelled 2004, although it notes 'December 2005'. The only Banerjee–Deaton–Duflo entry is labelled 2004, and the same work is cited as 2004 elsewhere in the text (p.4 and p.9). The years should be made consistent.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.23 cites "Duflo, Kremer, and Robinson (2005)", but p.15 cites the same work as "(2006)" and the reference list has only "Duflo, Esther, Michael Kremer, and Jonathan Robinson (2006)". Similarly, Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin is cited as (2005) on p.14, but the reference list gives (2006).
- p. 23 para 1
study by Duflo, Kremer, and Robinson (2005)
- p. 15 line 1
Duflo, Kremer, and Robinson in Kenya (2006)
- p. 23 Beyond Market Failures
Duflo, Kremer, and Robinson (2005)
- p. 26 References
Duflo, Esther, Michael Kremer, and Jonathan Robinson (2006)
Judge's note: The images confirm 2005 on p.23, 2006 on p.15, and a single 2006 Duflo–Kremer–Robinson entry on p.26. Ashraf is cited as 2005 on p.14, and the p.25 entry is 2006. These are year mismatches against the reference list.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label P.16 cites "such as new seeds (Morduch, 1991)", but the reference list has only Morduch (1995) and Morduch (2006); there is no 1991 entry.
- p. 16 para 2
such as new seeds (Morduch, 1991)
- p. 16 para 3
(Morduch, 1991)
- p. 15 Footnote 10
(Morduch, 2005)
- p. 27 References
Morduch, Jonathan (1995)
Judge's note: I checked p.16 and the p.27 reference list. The 1991 citation has no matching entry; it is probably meant to be Morduch (1995). The separate 2005/2006 mismatch in footnote 10 is judged under C046.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.23 cites "Munshi and Rosenzweig (2004)", but the only matching reference is "Munshi, K. and M. Rosenzweig (2005)". On p.16 the same work is cited as "Rosenzweig and Munshi (2005)".
- p. 23 Why Don't the Poor Migrate
Munshi and Rosenzweig (2004)
- p. 27 References
Munshi, K. and M. Rosenzweig (2005)
- p. 16 para 1
Rosenzweig and Munshi (2005)
Judge's note: The images show 2004 on p.23, 'Rosenzweig and Munshi (2005)' twice on p.16, and a single 2005 entry on p.27. There is no 2004 entry.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.21 cites "Fafchamps and Shilpi (2005)", but the reference list has no Fafchamps–Shilpi entry.
- p. 21 para 4
Fafchamps and Shilpi
- p. 21 Why the Poor Don't Eat More?
Fafchamps and Shilpi (2005)
Judge's note: I read every reference page (pp.25–27). The only Fafchamps entries are Fafchamps & Lund (2003) and Fafchamps & Gubert (2005). Grep finds 'Shilpi' only in the text citation.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 7 column 'A Household's Average # of Consultations' (In Last Month) prints 0.11 for rural <$1 Udaipur while 58.1% of households met a private and 20.1% a public consultant at least once; similar for Pakistan (0.45 vs 48.8%), Tanzania (0.07 vs 23.2%), Panama, Peru, South Africa.
- p. 36 Table 7, <$1 Rural, India - Udaipur
0.11
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Table 7 on p.36. The 'In Last Month' spanner rule extends over all columns through 'Private', and the text (p.~19: '58 percent of the extremely poor households have visited a private health care provider in the last month') confirms the same one-month reference period. A per-household average count cannot be below the share of households with at least one consultation (>=0.581). The label or the unit (e.g. per member) appears mis-stated; only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Appendix tables (e.g. Table 3, '<$1 rural: India - UP/Bihar 80.1%') report an 'India - UP/Bihar' sample, but the data description ('we also use two surveys that we conducted in India') and Table 1 describe only Udaipur and Hyderabad.
- p. 2 Data description
we also use two surveys that we conducted in India
- p. 32 Table 3, <$1 rural
India - UP/Bihar
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: A search of the text finds 'UP/Bihar' only in the appendix tables (Tables 2, 3 and later ones). Table 1 has no row for it, so there is no source, year or sample size. The only other mention is Eastern Uttar Pradesh in an unrelated citation. The dataset's provenance is undocumented.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The text says food 'typically represents from 56 to 78 percent among rural households, and 56 to 74 percent in urban areas', but Table 3 (<$1 urban) shows Papua New Guinea at 81.7%, and rural India - UP/Bihar is 80.1%.
- p. 5 para 1
and 56 to 74 percent in urban areas
- p. 32 Table 3, <$1 urban PNG Food
81.7%
- p. 5 Food and Other Consumption
56 to 78 percent among rural households, and 56 to 74 percent in urban areas
- p. 32 Table 3 urban <$1
Papua New Guinea 81.7%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 3 image, p.32: urban <$1 food shares run from 56.3% (Nicaragua) to 81.7% (PNG), with Timor Leste at 74.1%. Mexico rural (49.6%) is named as an exception in the text, but PNG urban is not. 'Typically' hedges the statement, so I rate it as wording (S3).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.7: 'In all countries, the share of rural households owning a television is substantially larger for those who live on less than $2 a day than those living on less than $1 a day'. Table 4 shows decreases for Guatemala (20.3% to 18.6%) and Timor Leste (0.6% to 0.4%).
- p. 7 Ownership of Assets, para 2
In all countries, the share of rural households owning a television is substantially larger
- p. 33 Table 4, Guatemala Television
18.6%
- p. 7 Ownership of Assets, para 2
In all countries, the share of rural households owning a television is substantially larger for those who live on less than $2 a day
- p. 33 Table 4, Television, rural Guatemala
20.3%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read from Table 4 (p.33), rural TV column. The worked examples in the text are correct (Cote d'Ivoire 14.3 to 44.9, South Africa 7.2 to 16.5, Peru 9.8 to 20.9). The 'all countries' generalisation does not hold for Guatemala or Timor Leste, and Tanzania (0.0 to 0.1) shows a negligible change.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.12 says "Indonesia is the only country in our data where the proportion is higher: 41 percent of the urban households came from elsewhere". Table 12 shows urban Mexico (<$1) with 32.3% migrated for work (37.4% since birth).
- p. 12 para 3
Indonesia is the only country in our data where the proportion is higher
- p. 41 Table 12, <$1 Urban, Mexico, For Work
32.3%
- p. 12 Temporary Migration
Indonesia is the only country in our data where the proportion is higher: 41 percent of the urban households came from elsewhere
- p. 41 Table 12
Mexico 37.4% 32.3%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 12 (p.41), urban <$1, 'For Work': CdI 6.0, Indonesia 41.3, Mexico 32.3, Nicaragua 5.9, Pakistan 3.6, Peru 9.6. The text's 4/6/6/10 and the Indonesia 41 come from this column, but Mexico (32.3) is left out and is also well above the 14.7% benchmark. Nothing in the text excludes Mexico. Also, the table reports percent of adults, while the text says 'households'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.14 says that in Indonesia "one-third of the rural poor households borrow from a bank". In Table 8, 33.3% is the bank share of total loans, and only 11.9% of those households have any loan.
- p. 14 para 1
one-third of the rural poor households borrow from a bank
- p. 37 Table 8, <$2 Rural, Indonesia
33.3%
Judge's note: Table 8 (p.37), rural <$2 Indonesia: 11.9% of households have at least one loan, and 33.3% under 'Proportion of Total Laons from: Bank'. The opening clause of the sentence ('a substantial share of the loans') is correct. Restating it as one-third of households misdescribes the quantity; on these figures roughly 4% of households would have a bank loan.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.15 says that outside Cote d'Ivoire "the fraction is below 14 percent in the other countries in our data". Table 8 (<$1 urban) shows savings-account shares of 26.2% (Pakistan), 24.7% (Hyderabad) and 17.7% (Tanzania), and the same paragraph cites 25% for Hyderabad.
- p. 15 para 2
the fraction is below 14 percent in the other countries in our data
- p. 37 Table 8, <$1 Urban, Pakistan, Savings Account
26.2%
- p. 37 Table 8, <$1 rural South Africa, Savings Account
16.7%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 8 (p.37), last column. Every rural <$1 value apart from CdI is at most 13.4%, so the claim seems to hold only for rural households, but the sentence is not limited to them. One reviewer's 16.7% for rural South Africa is in the 'Other' lender column, not the savings column; South Africa's savings cell is blank.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 13 note lists the same control twice: 'proportion of schedule caste and proportion of scheduled caste and a year dummy' (presumably scheduled tribe intended); the note's '1973 (for the 1981) data and 1987' pairing is also garbled.
- p. 42 Table 13 note
schedule caste and proportion of scheduled caste
- p. 42 Table 13 row
Tarmac roards
- p. 42 Table 13 note
proportion of schedule caste and proportion of scheduled caste and a year dummy
- p. 42 Table 13 header
Proportion below the Poverty line
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed the Table 13 note on p.42. The duplication is visible, and the reader cannot tell which second control was used. 'Tarmac roards' is covered by C077. The claim that the header 'Proportion below the Poverty line' names the regressor rather than the dependent variable is a usual convention and is not a defect.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
40 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Substance P.19 says infant mortality among the extremely poor "is 8.7 percent in South Africa and Tanzania", but Table 7 (<$1 rural) gives 8.6% for South Africa and 8.7% for Tanzania.
- p. 19 para 1
8.7 percent in South Africa and Tanzania
- p. 36 Table 7, <$1 Rural, South Africa, Infant Mortality
8.6%
- p. 36 Table 7 rural <$1
South Africa 12.5% 0.12 16.4% 6.9% 8.6%
Judge's note: Table 7 image on p.36: South Africa 8.6%, Tanzania 8.7%. Both are printed to one decimal, so rounding does not explain the difference. It is a 0.1-point discrepancy.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.6 cites 'Strauss and Thomas (1997)' for a food expenditure elasticity. The only matching reference entry (p.27) is 'Thomas, D., and J. Strauss (1997), "Health and wages: Evidence on men and women in urban Brazil"'.
- p. 6 last para
Strauss and Thomas (1997) found an elasticity of demand for food
- p. 27 References
Thomas, D., and J. Strauss (1997), "Health and wages: Evidence on men and women in urban
- p. 27 References
Thomas, D., and J. Strauss (1997), "Health and wages: Evidence on men and women in urban Brazil,"
- p. 27 references
Thomas, D., and J. Strauss (1997), "Health and wages
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: whether the Thomas and Strauss (1997) health-and-wages paper reports a food-demand elasticity. The reversed author order is verifiable on the page images. Whether the cited work is the intended source cannot be settled from the files.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label P.16 cites "Gubert and Fafchamps (2006)", but the reference entry is "Fafchamps, Marcel and Flore Gubert (2005)"; similarly, "Strauss and Thomas (1997)" on p.6 is listed as "Thomas, D., and J. Strauss (1997)".
- p. 16 para 3
as Gubert and Fafchamps (2006) show for the Philippines
- p. 26 References
Fafchamps, Marcel and Flore Gubert (2005)
- p. 6 text
Strauss and Thomas (1997)
- p. 27 References
Thomas, D., and J. Strauss (1997)
Judge's note: P.16 against the p.26 list: both the author order and the year differ. P.6 against the p.27 list: the author order is reversed. The other citation mismatches raised in note 3 are judged under their own clusters (C046, C048, C060).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label P.19 cites "Banerjee, Deaton, and Duflo (2005)", but the reference entry is "Banerjee, Abhijit, Angus Deaton, and Esther Duflo (2004)"; p.14 also cites "(Banerjee and Duflo, 2005)" against an entry labelled 2004.
- p. 19 last para
Banerjee, Deaton, and Duflo (2005)
- p. 25 References
Banerjee, Abhijit, Angus Deaton, and Esther Duflo (2004)
- p. 14 para 2
(Banerjee and Duflo, 2005)
- p. 25 References
Banerjee, Abhijit and Esther Duflo (2004)
Judge's note: The p.25 list labels both entries 2004. The Banerjee and Duflo entry carries an in-entry date of 'December 2005', which partly explains that citation, but the label is inconsistent. The Banerjee, Deaton and Duflo AER 94(2) entry is plainly 2004. I could not find other in-text citations of this work in the text layer.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label P.19 cites "(Pratham, 2005)", but the reference reads "Prathman. Annual Status of Education Report, 2006"; the list also has the misspellings "Audretsh", "Barnerji", "New Dehli", "Supplementtion" and "Why don't farmer use"; and Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin is cited as 2005 against a 2006 entry.
- p. 19 para 2
(Pratham, 2005)
- p. 27 References
Prathman. Annual Status of Education Report, 2006.
- p. 25 References
Audretsh, David
- p. 25 References
Rukmini Barnerji
Judge's note: I confirmed each item on the page images of pp.14, 19, 25, 26 and 27. The Pratham year and spelling differ. The misspellings are all present in the reference list. Ashraf et al. is cited as 2005 on p.14 and listed as 2006 on p.25. The Morduch and Banerjee, Deaton and Duflo mismatches are judged under C046, C048 and C059.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Footnote 10 cites "(Morduch, 2005)" for weather insurance, but the reference list has no Morduch 2005; the matching entry is "Morduch, Jonathan (2006), 'Micro-Insurance: The Next Revolution?'".
- p. 15 footnote 10
(Morduch, 2005)
- p. 27 References
Morduch, Jonathan (2006), “Micro-Insurance: The Next Revolution?,”
Judge's note: Footnote 10 on p.15 reads (Morduch, 2005). On the p.27 reference list the only Morduch entries are 1995 (income smoothing) and 2006 (micro-insurance). The year does not match.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label P.16 cites "Rosenzweig and Munshi (2005)" twice, but the reference entry is "Munshi, K. and M. Rosenzweig (2005)".
- p. 16 para 1 and 2
Rosenzweig and Munshi (2005)
Judge's note: Both citations on p.16 reverse the author order of the p.27 entry. The year matches.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Footnote 5 gives the correlation 'is 0.33 among these 12 countries', but the sample is described everywhere as 13 countries, and the excluded country is not identified.
- p. 5 footnote 5
among these 12 countries
- p. 8 text
Indonesia, Guatemala and Timor
- p. 2 intro
household surveys conducted in 13 countries
- p. 5
is 0.33 among these 12 countries
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Footnote 5 on the p.5 image says 12. The abstract, intro and Table 1 say 13 countries. One country may lack a 1993 PPP/official exchange-rate ratio, but the paper does not say which. The varied naming of Timor Leste is cosmetic.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.10 converts a rupee as "(roughly 15 cents, at PPP)", but footnote 2 gives "Rs 328 per person per month, or $32 in PPP dollars in 1999/2000", about 10 cents per rupee.
- p. 10 para 1
(roughly 15 cents, at PPP)
- p. 2 footnote 2
Rs 328 per person per month, or $32 in PPP dollars in 1999/2000
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Footnote 2 on p.2 implies about 0.098 PPP dollars per rupee. The paper does not say which PPP base or year the 15-cent figure uses. Footnote 1 says the paper uses 1993 PPP. Only the authors can reconcile the two conversions.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The text says the share below $2.16 a day is '40 percent of the population or more in the median country', but the median of Table 1's $2.16 percentages is 38.5% (14 surveys).
- p. 3 para 4
40 percent of the population or more in the median country
- p. 29 Table 1, $2.16 Percent column
39%
- p. 29 Table 1, $2.16 Percent of Total
38%
Judge's note: Table 1 $2.16 'Percent of Total' values, sorted: 6, 19, 20, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 49, 51, 56, 73, 83, 86. The median is 38.5, or 38/39 depending on how India's two surveys are counted. The gap is small, but the text sets 40% as a floor.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The text defines adults as 'those over 18' and children as 'ages 0 to 18', but Table 2's bands are 0-12, 13-18, 21-50 and 51-older, so ages 19-20 appear in no column.
- p. 4 para 1-2
The number of adults (i.e. those over 18)
- p. 31 Table 2 header
women 21-50
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The Table 2 header on p.31 reads girls/boys 0-12 and 13-18, women/men 21-50 and 51-older. Nothing explains the 19-20 gap: the header could be a typo for 19-50, or those ages may have been dropped. Only the authors can say.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.6: 'in Nicaragua where 57 percent of the rural poor households, respectively, have a radio and 21 percent and 19 percent own a television'. 'Respectively' has no paired list, and the two TV figures come from different groups in Table 4.
- p. 6 para 3
where 57 percent of the rural poor households, respectively, have a radio and 21 percent and 19
- p. 33 Table 4 Nicaragua
21.1%
- p. 6 para 2
57 percent of the rural poor households, respectively, have a radio and 21 percent and 19 percent own a television
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked against Table 4 (p.33). Radio 57.2% is rural under $2. TV 19.2% is rural under $2. TV 21.1% is urban under $1. The sentence gives one radio figure and two TV figures with 'respectively' and does not say which group each refers to. Only the authors can say which groups were meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.15 says of health insurance "The numbers are not much higher in urban areas." Table 11 (<$1) shows urban Indonesia at 23.1% (rural 3.9%) and urban Peru at 13.3% (rural 5.6%).
- p. 15 Market for Insurance
The numbers are not much higher in urban areas.
- p. 40 Table 11, <$1 Urban, Indonesia, Health
23.1%
Judge's note: Table 11 (p.40), Health column, <$1. Rural: UP/Bihar 4.7, Indonesia 3.9, Mexico 50.7, Nicaragua 5.5, Panama 0.0, Peru 5.6. Urban: Hyderabad 0.0, Indonesia 23.1, Mexico 24.9, Nicaragua 7.6, Peru 13.3. For Indonesia and Peru the urban shares are several times the rural ones, so 'not much higher' understates them. Nicaragua and Hyderabad do fit the statement.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording P.18 says "In Udaipur, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and South Africa, the share of the rural extremely poor with tap water or electricity is below 5 percent", but Table 5 (<$1 rural) gives electricity of 8.3% (Udaipur), 8.8% (Timor Leste) and 5.6% (South Africa).
- p. 18 para 1
the share of the rural extremely poor with tap water or electricity is below 5 percent
- p. 34 Table 5, <$1 Rural, Electricity
8.8%
- p. 34 Table 5, <$1 rural Electricity
8.3%
- p. 34 Table 5 rural <$1 electricity
India - Udaipur 0.0% 0.0% 8.3%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 5 on p.34 (<$1 rural): tap water is 0.0, 1.7, 2.3 and 4.4, all below 5%. Electricity is 8.3, 2.0, 8.8 and 5.6. The statement holds for tap water only, and for electricity only in PNG. The wording 'or' could be read as either measure, so I rate this as wording that misdescribes the table.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording P.18 says "The only exception to this pattern in our 13 countries is Cote d'Ivoire", but Table 5 also shows higher rural than urban electricity access in Mexico (99.0% vs 95.5% at <$1; 99.0% vs 96.6% at <$2).
- p. 18 para 2
The only exception to this pattern in our 13 countries is Cote d’Ivoire
- p. 34 Table 5, Mexico Electricity
95.5%
- p. 34 Table 5 Mexico electricity
Mexico 99.0%
- p. 34 Table 5
Mexico 99.0% (rural) vs 95.5% (urban)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 5 on p.34: Cote d'Ivoire rural exceeds urban on tap water and electricity. Mexico reports only electricity, and its rural value also exceeds urban at both poverty lines. The gap is small, but 'only exception' does not hold for Mexico.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording P.19 says "The rates are lower, but not much lower, in urban areas", but Table 7 (<$1) shows urban infant mortality higher than rural in Cote d'Ivoire (9.5% vs 6.2%) and South Africa (9.2% vs 8.6%).
- p. 19 para 1
The rates are lower, but not much lower, in urban areas.
- p. 36 Table 7, <$1 Urban, Cote d'Ivoire
9.5%
- p. 36 Table 7
Cote d'Ivoire 27.8% 0.68 32.6% 2.6% 9.5%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 7 on p.36, <$1: urban is lower than rural in Indonesia (2.8 vs 3.4), Mexico (2.5 vs 6.9), Pakistan (11.8 vs 16.7) and Tanzania (7.3 vs 8.7), but higher in Cote d'Ivoire and South Africa. The unqualified statement overstates the pattern.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The appendix tables (e.g. Table 6, Table 10) report rows for "India - UP/Bihar", but Table 1 ("Data sets description") and the text describing the data sources do not list a UP/Bihar survey.
- p. 29 Table 1
India - Hyderabad ... India - Udaipur
- p. 35 Table 6
India - UP/Bihar
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 1 (p.29) has 14 rows with no UP/Bihar entry. The text on p.3 lists LSMS, the RAND FLS and 'two surveys that we conducted in India' (Udaipur, Hyderabad). Table 6 (p.35) and Table 10 (p.39) include UP/Bihar rows. The source and sample of these data are not described.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 8, India - Udaipur rural: loan-source shares '6.0% 15.9% 0.0% 6.0% 2.6% 36.4% 4.0% 21.6% 2.1% 2.8%' sum to 97.4% (<$1), and the <$2 row sums to 103.4%; Bank and Credit Union carry identical values (6.0/6.0, 6.4/6.4).
- p. 37 Table 8, India - Udaipur rural <$1 and <$2
India - Udaipur 66.3% 6.0% 15.9% 0.0% 6.0% 2.6% 36.4% 4.0% 21.6% 2.1% 2.8%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Table 8 on p.37 and recomputed the sums. Rows such as Hyderabad, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan sum to about 100. Others do not: South Africa rural <$1 sums to 115.1 and Peru to 33.1, so the columns may not be exhaustive or exclusive. The specific Udaipur concern is the identical Bank and Credit Union cells. The text (p.13) says 'only 6.4 percent from a formal source like a commercial bank or a cooperative', so 6.4 is the combined formal share, which suggests the value was entered in both columns. Query to the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 12, urban Mexico <$2: 'Mexico 39.5% 40.3%' – share of adults who migrated 'For Work' exceeds share who migrated 'Since Birth'.
- p. 41 Table 12, <$2 Urban, Mexico
39.5%
- p. 41 Table 12, urban <$2
Mexico 39.5% 40.3%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Table 12 on p.41. In every other row For Work <= Since Birth. Neither the table nor the text defines the two columns or their denominators, so the authors need to say whether this is a definitional difference or an entry error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 13 uses bold without definition, and inconsistently: middle school '-0.153 (.105)' is bold, while college '-0.013 (.007)' and post office '-0.200 (.121)' are not.
- p. 42 Table 13, col (1), middle school
-0.153
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p.42. The note does not say what bold means. If it marks significance, the bolded middle-school estimate has a smaller ratio (1.46) than the unbolded college (1.86) and post office (1.65) estimates. Bold may use a different criterion (e.g. clustered SEs), but none is stated.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Abstract prints 'JEL: O10,O15,016.' with the third code typed with a digit zero ('016' for O16); there are also misspellings 'The Qwnership of Assets' (p.7), 'businesses in Hyerabad' (p.12) and 'Udiapur' (p.9).
- p. 1 Abstract JEL
O10,O15,016
- p. 1 Abstract
JEL: O10,O15,016
- p. 7 heading
The Qwnership of Assets
- p. 12 p.12
businesses in Hyerabad
Judge's note: In the crop of p.1 the third code's leading glyph is a narrower zero, unlike the 'O' in O10 and O15. The headings and words on pp.7, 9 and 12 are misspelled in the page images. 'Keyword' (singular) and '$2 dollar' are minor style points.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.7: 'less than $2 a dollar a day' is garbled. The abstract (p.1) has the redundant '$2 dollar per day' and '$1 dollar per day'.
- p. 7 Ownership of Assets para 2
less than $2 a
- p. 1 Abstract
less than $2 dollar per day per capita
- p. 7 Ownership of assets
less than $2 a dollar a day
Judge's note: Both are visible in the page images. These are copy-editing slips.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 4 ends 'poor/extremely poor distinction,' with a comma instead of a full stop; footnote 3 has the redundant '$1 and $2 dollar poverty lines'.
- p. 3 footnote 4
poor/extremely poor distinction,
- p. 2 footnote 3
the $1 and $2 dollar poverty lines
Judge's note: Both are visible on the page images of p.3 and p.2. Cosmetic only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo 'comes from the fact that here are a lot of children' should read 'there are'.
- p. 3 last para
comes from the fact that here are a lot of
- p. 3 last para
the fact that here are a lot of children
- p. 3 Living Arrangements
the fact that here are a lot of
- p. 5 footnote 5
relatively are cheaper relative to food
Judge's note: Seen on the p.3 page image. The footnote 5 wording 'relatively are cheaper relative' is handled under C010.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 5 reads 'because consumption goods are relatively are cheaper relative to food', with a duplicated 'are' and redundant 'relatively'.
- p. 5 footnote 5
consumption goods are relatively are cheaper relative to food
- p. 5 Footnote 5
are relatively are cheaper relative to food
Judge's note: Seen on the p.5 page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo 'slightly less than half the budget (49.6 percent) allocated to purchase food' is missing a verb ('is allocated').
- p. 5 para 1
(49.6 percent) allocated to purchase food
Judge's note: Seen on the p.5 page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.5: 'living at under$1 per day' lacks a space between 'under' and '$1'.
- p. 5 first paragraph
living at under$1 per day
Judge's note: The page image shows the missing space, so it is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.7 subsection heading is misspelt 'The Qwnership of Assets' (should be 'Ownership').
- p. 7 subsection heading
The Qwnership of Assets
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.9 cites '(Banerjee, Duflo, and Deaton, 2004)'. The reference list entry is 'Banerjee, Abhijit, Angus Deaton, and Esther Duflo (2004)'.
- p. 9 para 2
(Banerjee, Duflo, and Deaton, 2004)
Judge's note: The author order in the citation differs from the reference entry on p.25 and from the p.2 citation ('Banerjee, Deaton, Duflo, 2004'). The work being cited is still identifiable.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.9: 'Udiapur' is misspelt (should be 'Udaipur', as spelled elsewhere).
- p. 9 para 2
Udiapur
- p. 9 para 3
and cutting meals is not that common
- p. 9 para 2
45 percent of the extremely poor households in Udiapur
- p. 9 p.9
they have substantial slack in their budgets and cutting meals is not that common
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the page image. The cluster's second point, that 'cutting meals is not that common' clashes with the 45%/37% figures, is an interpretive wording choice and is not confirmed as an erratum.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelt place names: "the businesses in Hyerabad include" (p.12) for Hyderabad, and "extremely poor households in Udiapur" (p.9) for Udaipur.
- p. 12 last para
the businesses in Hyerabad include
- p. 9 para 2
Udiapur
- p. 12 last para
Hyerabad
- p. 12 Lack of Specialization
businesses in Hyerabad
Judge's note: Both misspellings are visible in the page images. Elsewhere the paper spells them Hyderabad and Udaipur.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo P.15 prints "they are also some times linked to bank which offer them banks"; this should read "linked to banks which offer them loans".
- p. 15 para 3
linked to bank which offer them banks
Judge's note: The page image shows the garbled phrase. In context, banks offer self-help groups loans, not banks.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo P.17 prints "typically the land where tilling is incomplete"; the context (land titles) requires "titling".
- p. 17 Market for Land, para 2
typically the land where tilling is incomplete
Judge's note: I read the page image. The surrounding paragraphs are about titles and land records, so "tilling" is a misspelling of "titling".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.20: "A final, more compelling reason for doing multiple jobs is that they poor cannot raise the capital" — 'they poor' should be 'the poor'.
- p. 20 para 4
that they poor cannot raise
- p. 23 Beyond Market Failures
these are people appear to be are willing
- p. 21 Why the poor don't eat more
can explained by a simple lack
Judge's note: The page image shows 'they poor' on p.20. Reviewer note 3 also mentions the garbled phrases on pp.21 and 23. Those are judged separately as C063 and C068.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.21: "it is unlikely that the low levels of good consumption can explained by a simple lack of self control" — should read 'food consumption can be explained'.
- p. 21 para 4
levels of good consumption can explained
Judge's note: The page image confirms 'good consumption can explained'. The paragraph is about food, so 'good' should be 'food', and 'be' is missing.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.22: "you are constantly resisting temptation to spend:. to buy something you want" — stray colon and period together.
- p. 22 Why Don't the Poor Save More
temptation to spend:. to buy
Judge's note: The page image shows 'spend:.' on p.22.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.23: "given that these are people appear to be are willing to give up a 100 percent return in a three to five months" — duplicated/stray words.
- p. 23 para 3
these are people appear to be are willing
Judge's note: The page image confirms the garbled phrase on p.23.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The reference list has both "Field, Erica (2003), 'Entitled to Work: Urban Property Rights and Labor Supply in Peru,' Mimeo, Harvard, July" and "Field, Erica (2006) 'Entitled to Work: Urban Property Rights and the Labor Supply in Peru', MIMEO, Harvard". The text cites only Field (2006).
- p. 26 References
Field, Erica (2003), "Entitled to Work: Urban Property Rights and Labor Supply in Peru,"
Judge's note: On p.26 the two entries have essentially the same title. Grep finds only 'Field (2006)' cited in the text (p.17). The 2003 entry is a redundant, uncited duplicate.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 lists the Guatemala source as "GFHS", but note 5 reads "The IFLS and GFLS are available from the RAND FLS page".
- p. 29 Table 1, Guatemala Source
GFHS
- p. 29 Table 1 note 5
The IFLS and GFLS are available from the RAND FLS page
- p. 29 Table 1 note 5
The IFLS and GFLS are available
- p. 29 Table 1
Guatemala GFHS
Judge's note: In the upright image of p.29, the Guatemala row's source reads GFHS and note 5 reads GFLS. The text (p.3) calls these the RAND 'Family Life Surveys', so GFLS is presumably intended. Reviewer note 4 adds that the Udaipur year is 2004 while the text says 2002–2003. 2004 matches the citation year (Banerjee, Deaton, Duflo 2004), so I treat that as a minor point and not the core defect.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspellings in appendix table headings: Table 8 'Proportion of Total Laons from:' and 'Microcredit Instiution'; Table 6 'Median Ares Of Land Owned'; Table 5 'Economics environment of the poor'; Table 13 'Tarmac roards'.
- p. 37 Table 8 header
Proportion of Total Laons from:
- p. 37 Table 8 header
Microcredit Instiution
- p. 35 Table 6 header
Median Ares Of Land Owned
- p. 34 Table 5 title
Economics environment of the poor
Judge's note: All five spellings are visible in the page images (pp.34, 35, 37, 42). These are plain typos ('Ares' presumably 'Area'). Table 13 row labels are also truncated ('State Fixed effe', 'Any Medical Fa').
Second check: none (judge only)