IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sus/susewp/0924.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana on Indian Households

Author

Listed:
  • Nabeel Asharaf

    (Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer BN19RH)

  • Richard S.J. Tol

    (Department of Economics, University of Sussex, B91 NSL Falmer, United Kingdom)

Abstract

This study critically evaluates the impact of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana(PMUY) on LPG accessibility among poor households in India. Using Propensity Score Matching and Differencein-Differences estimators and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) dataset, the Average Treatment Effect on the intendedly Treated is a modest 2.1 percentage point increase in LPG consumption due to PMUY, with a parallel decrease in firewood consumption. Regional analysis reveals differential impacts, with significant progress in the North, West, and South but less pronounced effects in the East and North East. The study also underscores variance across social groups, with Scheduled Caste households showing the most substantial benefits, while Scheduled Tribes households are hardly affected. Despite the PMUY’s initial success in facilitating LPG access, sustaining its usage remains challenging. Policy should emphasise targeted interventions, income support, and address regional and community-specific disparities or the sustained usage of LPG.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabeel Asharaf & Richard S.J. Tol, 2024. "The Impact of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana on Indian Households," Working Paper Series 0924, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:sus:susewp:0924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-09-2024.pdf&site=18
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chindarkar, Namrata & Jain, Abhishek & Mani, Sunil, 2021. "Examining the willingness-to-pay for exclusive use of LPG for cooking among rural households in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    3. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    4. Agarwal, Renu & Mittal, Neeraj & Patterson, Eric & Giorcelli, Michela, 2021. "Evolution of the Indian LPG industry: Exploring conditions for public sector business model innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    5. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    6. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    7. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    8. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    9. Słoczyński, Tymon & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2018. "A General Double Robustness Result For Estimating Average Treatment Effects," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 112-133, February.
    10. Khandelwal, Meena & Hill, Matthew E. & Greenough, Paul & Anthony, Jerry & Quill, Misha & Linderman, Marc & Udaykumar, H.S., 2017. "Why Have Improved Cook-Stove Initiatives in India Failed?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 13-27.
    11. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    12. Rahul Ranjan & Sudershan Singh, 2020. "Household Cooking Fuel Patterns in Rural India: Pre- and Post-Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 14(3), pages 518-526, December.
    13. Zhiqiang Tan, 2010. "Bounded, efficient and doubly robust estimation with inverse weighting," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 97(3), pages 661-682.
    14. Gould, Carlos F. & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2018. "LPG as a clean cooking fuel: Adoption, use, and impact in rural India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 395-408.
    15. Glynn, Adam N. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2010. "An Introduction to the Augmented Inverse Propensity Weighted Estimator," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 36-56, January.
    16. Balachandra, P., 2011. "Dynamics of rural energy access in India: An assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 5556-5567.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Song, Xiaojun, 2019. "Specification tests for the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 210(2), pages 379-404.
    2. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    3. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    4. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2014. "The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 344-365.
    5. Farrell, Max H., 2015. "Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-23.
    6. Roberto ESPOSTI, 2014. "To match, not to match, how to match: Estimating the farm-level impact of the CAP-first pillar reform (or: How to Apply Treatment-Effect Econometrics when the Real World is;a Mess)," Working Papers 403, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    7. Ahmed Elsayed & Soiliou Daw Namoro & Rania Roushdy, 2022. "Empowering women in conservative settings: evidence from an intervention in rural Egypt," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1287-1322, December.
    8. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    9. Nguyen Viet, Cuong, 2012. "Selection of Control Variables in Propensity Score Matching: Evidence from a Simulation Study," MPRA Paper 36377, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2010. "How to Control for Many Covariates? Reliable Estimators Based on the Propensity Score," IZA Discussion Papers 5268, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain, 2015. "Analysis of the bias of Matching and Difference-in-Difference under alternative earnings and selection processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 110-123.
    12. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    13. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Bernhard Boockmann & Tobias Brändle, 2019. "Coaching, Counseling, Case‐Working: Do They Help the Older Unemployed Out of Benefit Receipt and Back Into the Labor Market?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 20(4), pages 436-468, November.
    15. Li, Daiyue & Jin, Yanhong & Cheng, Mingwang, 2024. "Unleashing the power of industrial robotics on firm productivity: Evidence from China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 500-520.
    16. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2013. "Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 76-89.
    17. Chad D. Meyerhoefer & Muzhe Yang, 2011. "The Relationship between Food Assistance and Health: A Review of the Literature and Empirical Strategies for Identifying Program Effects," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 304-344.
    18. Aydemir, Abdurrahman B. & Kırdar, Murat G., 2017. "Quasi-experimental impact estimates of immigrant labor supply shocks: The role of treatment and comparison group matching and relative skill composition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 282-315.
    19. Jung, Suhyun & Polasky, Stephen, 2018. "Partnerships to prevent deforestation in the Amazon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 498-516.
    20. Todo, Yasuyuki, 2011. "Impacts of Aid-Funded Technical Assistance Programs: Firm-Level Evidence from the Indonesian Foundry Industry," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-362, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    PMUY; Energy Poverty; Program Evaluation; India; BPL Households;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sus:susewp:0924. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsusuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.