1. Generating Employment in Microenterprises Christopher Woodruff, University of Warwick Based on joint work with Suresh De Mel and David Mckenzie Workshop on Employment NYU Stern School of Business September 25-26, 2011

2. Project motivation As much as half of the labor force in low- income countries is self employed. – Can we stimulate more employment generation among these enterprises? – If so, how?

3. Project motivation Previous project: Provided capital injections into microenterprises in Sri Lanka – Large increases in profits – But no change in employment Data suggest that learning to manage non-family employees is a particularly difficult step to make – Management skills? – How to hire, how to manage – Types? – How will the owner determine if he/she is an effective manager? – Need for a large lump of capital to make the new worker productive? – Training required to make a new worker productive?

4. Project motivation This project: examine the reasons why the non- employer to employer transition is so challenging We offer selected firms 1 or 2 of the following: – Matched savings program (50-100% match rates, ‘locked’ for 9 months) – Training (ILO “Improve Your Business”) – Incentives to hire new worker (4000 LKR, ~50% of unskilled wage)

5. Project motivation Data suggest that learning to manage non-family employees is a particularly difficult step to make – Management skills? – How to hire, how to manage – Types? – How will the owner determine if he/she is an effective manager? – Need for a large lump of capital to make the new worker productive? – Training required to make a new worker productive?

6. Sample Sample of 1535 Sri Lankan microenterprise owners – Male – Urban areas (Colombo, Kandy, Galle) – Selected through door-to-door screening exercise of households – aged 20 to 45 – with 2 or fewer employees (87% non-employers)

7. Timeline of project Apr 2008 April 2009 Screening and baseline survey Oct 2008 Baseline survey for ‘booster’ sample + follow-up October 2009 April 2010 October 2010 April 2011 October 2011

8. Timeline of project Apr 2008 April 2009 Screening and baseline survey Oct 2008 Baseline survey for ‘booster’ sample + follow-up Nov 2008: Begin matched savings program August 2009: Savings program account ‘unlocked’ October 2009 April 2010 October 2010 April 2011 October 2011

9. Timeline of project Apr 2008 April 2009 Screening and baseline survey June - July 2009: Training program Oct 2008 Baseline survey for ‘booster’ sample + follow-up Nov 2008: Begin matched savings program August 2009: Savings program account ‘unlocked’ October 2009 April 2010 October 2010 April 2011 October 2011

10. Timeline of project Apr 2008 April 2009 Screening and baseline survey June - July 2009: Training program Oct 2008 Baseline survey for ‘booster’ sample + follow-up Nov 2008: Begin matched savings program August 2009: Begin wage subsidies August 2009: Savings program account ‘unlocked’ October 2009 May 2010: Wage incentives end April 2010 October 2010 April 2011 October 2011

11. Sample: Random allocation to cells Intervention 1 Intervention 2 NoneSavingsTrainingEmployment None287112141250 Savings150297 Training150298 Employment297298 Total287559589845 Note: Stratified on retail vs non-retail and region (Colombo area, Kandy area, Galle area).

12. Take-up: Proportion of those offered Number Offered% Participating Savings55981.4% (455) Training58957.9% (341) (1) Employment84529.2% (247) (1)Based on the percentage completing the training course. 368 (62.5%) began the training course.

13. Who takes up: Employment De Mel et al, May 2010 AER P&P. Based on initial take-up by 22% of the sample.

14. Effect of training on management practices

15. Effect of savings program on inventory levels

16. Effect of wage incentives on having a paid worker

17. Effect of wage incentives on wage expense

18. Effect of programs on employment

19. Effect on employment: program interactions

20. Effect on wage bill, investments

21. Effect on sales, profits

22. Effect on sales…

23. …expenses…

24. …and profits

25. Conclusions Among a sample of microenterprises, temporary wage subsidies appear to result in: – increases in employment, even after the subsidies are removed. – Weaker evidence on an increase in sales and profits Surprisingly, a matched savings plan generates employment effects of a comparable size A standard training program generated no employment effects and only marginally significant effects on investment and sales

26. Conclusions and policy The preliminary results suggest that, with encouragement, microenterprises some non- employers can become employers Even if 10% of microenterprise owners create a single (additional) job, that would create jobs for ~3% of the labor force in a typical low / middle income country

27. Thank You!