Can public works programs mitigate the impact of crises in Europe? The case of Latvia

IZA Journal of European Labor Studies

Table 3 Targeting performance of WWS Program

	Quintile
	Poorest	Quintile 2	Quintile 3	Quintile 4	Richest	Poor	Non-poor	Total
Panel A: Latvia
Treatment-Currently in WWS	83.0	13.0	2.1	1.5	0.4	80.2	19.8	100
Control-On waiting list for WWS	76.6	15.7	3.2	3.4	1.1	73.2	26.8	100
Panel B: Regions
Kurzemes
Treatment -Currently in WWS	82.9	11.9	2.9	2.4	0.0	80.8	19.3	100
Control-On waiting list for WWS	72.3	19.6	3.8	3.8	0.5	68.8	31.2	100
Latgale
Treatment -Currently in WWS	87.7	8.6	2.5	1.2	0.0	87.7	12.4	100
Control-On waiting list for WWS	79.0	14.0	2.6	4.4	0.0	76.5	23.5	100
Riga
Treatment -Currently in WWS	80.5	14.3	3.0	1.5	0.8	75.7	24.3	100
Control-On waiting list for WWS	72.3	16.2	4.7	3.7	3.1	66.2	33.9	100
Vidzemes
Treatment -Currently in WWS	80.5	16.7	1.2	0.6	1.2	77.8	22.2	100
Control-On waiting list for WWS	81.0	13.9	2.2	2.2	0.7	79.6	20.4	100
Zemgales
Treatment -Currently in WWS	87.6	10.7	0.8	0.8	0.0	83.7	16.3	100
Control-On waiting list for WWS	83.7	12.2	1.6	2.4	0.0	81.6	18.4	100

Note: Per capita income is calculated without WWS stipend. A household is considered poor if its per capita income (without WWS stipend) is less than LVL 90 per month. The quintiles cut-offs are derived using the income distribution of Household Budget Survey-2009 (the inflation between 2009 and 2010 has been about zero, hence no adjustment is made in HBS-2009 cut offs).