Section 2: Evaluation of an Electronic Voting Reform on Development Outcomes (10 points) The previous analysis (in Section 1) is based on an influential paper by Thomas Fujiwara (2015 "Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Braz Econometrica, 83(2), 423-464. In a subsequent section of the article, Fujiwara (2015) uses ann or election-specific state-level data across years (over the period 1995-2006) to estimate effects of the EV reform for a host of electoral, fiscal policy (including health care spending), birth outcomes. Specifically, he reports estimates from the following differences-in-differen models: Vie = de + 85; * Term98, + yi + BXje + Bie where y denoted the outcomes of state i in electoral term e, S; is the share of the population the state with access to EV, Term98, is an indicator variable for the 1999-2002 electoral term, e, is the error term for state i in term e. His main results are in the following table: Dependent variables: Sample (s.e. ) Avg. (1) (2) Panel A: Electoral Outcomes Valid votes/Turnout 0.102 0.829 (0.017) Seat-Weighted Policy Position -0.206 4.623 (0.350) Panel B: Fiscal Outcomes log (Total Spending) 0.127 (0.097) Share of Spending in 0.034 0.099 Health Care (0.008) log (Health Spending p.c.) 0.552 (0.096) Panel C: Birth Outcomes (Mothers without Primary Schooling) Share with 7+ Visits 0.069 0.362 (0.040) Share with Low-weight Births -0.529 7.721 ( x 100) (0.246) N (state-terms) 108 Notes: Standard errors reported in parentheses. Source: Fujiwara (2015). Part A: Critically discuss the empirical results. Your discussion should include [10]: An interpretation of the results; An evaluation of the identification strategy and threats to validity; and, The necessary tests to verify the validity of the design