Corrigendum to “The effect of conditional cash transfers on reporting violence against women to the police in Mexico” [Int. Rev. Law Econ. 56 (2018) 73–91] (International Review of Law & Economics (2018) 56 (73–91), (S0144818818300930), (10.1016/j.irle.2018.08.002))

Few errors were introduced during the production of the article and below are the corrections. 1. The text begins repeating the first five footnotes as text in the main body. The paper should start with the Introduction.2. Page 3 of pdf: Footnote #7, did not take out (Samano, 2010), which I am not citing.3. Page 9 of the pdf: the paragraph that reads “In order to solve for OVB, the rest of the columns … Most important, the 2SLS estimator is unbiased in providing the local average treatment effect (LATE), but inefficient if sample sizes are below 5000 or treatment probabilities are low (Chiburis,Das,&Lokshin,2011). In contrast, the biprobit estimator provides much greater precision for the ATE, but at the expenses of having to assume standard bivariate normal error terms (Chiburis,Das,&Lokshin,2011). Findings in Table 3 indicate that biprobit estimations are less than a fifth of the 2SLS. Even though the 2SLS reports the LATE as opposed to the ATE, these differences in findings come from inefficiencies in the linear estimator rather than from differences between the LATE and the ATE (Chirubis, 2012). Therefore, provided that my sample size is below 5000, it is imperative to use a biprobit approach for efficient estimations.” This paragraph is citing (Chiburis,Das,&Lokshin,2011) or (Chirubis, 2012), whereas it should cite (Chiburis et al., 2012).