1932
0

Annual Review of Economics

Volume 11, 2019

Experiments and Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries

Abstract

We discuss the value of experiments in illuminating constraints on the growth of firms in developing countries. Experiments have provided insight into both the value and the difficulty of alleviating capital constraints in small firms. They suggest that urban, low-skilled labor markets appear to work reasonably well for firms, although there is a suggestion that frictions in markets for skilled workers may have more effect on firms. While observational data suggest that managerial training is important, experiments have shown that the traditional methods of delivering this training to small enterprises, at least, are not effective. Finally, while most work has focused on alleviating supply constraints, recent experiments have shown that positive demand shocks can be sufficient to generate firm growth. Experiments have been particularly illuminating in uncovering patterns in individual decision making, showing how agents respond to the specific changes in circumstances or incentives generated by the experiment. They are most valuable when they complement insight driven by theory.

Keyword(s): experiments in firms, firm growth, JEL D25, JEL L26, JEL O16, JEL O17, SME constraints
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030246
2019-08-02
2025-06-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/11/1/annurev-economics-080218-030246.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030246&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abebe G, Caria S, Fafchamps M, Falco P, Franklin S, Quinn S 2018a. Anonymity or distance? Job search and labour market exclusion in a growing African city Work. Pap., Oxford Univ Oxford, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abebe G, Caria S, Ortiz-Ospina E 2018b. The selection of talent: experimental and structural evidence from Ethiopia. Work. Pap., Oxford Univ Oxford, UK:
  3. Abebe G, Fafchamps M, Koelle M, Quinn S 2019. Learning by managing: a field experiment with aspiring entrepreneurs Work. Pap., Oxford Univ Oxford, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Mitton T 2009. Determinants of vertical integration: financial development and contracting costs. J. Finance 6431251–90
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ackerberg DA, Caves K, Frazer G 2015. Identification properties of recent production function estimators. Econometrica 832411–51
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Alfonsi L, Bandiera O, Bassi V, Burgess R, Rasul I et al. 2017. Tackling youth unemployment: evidence from a labor market experiment in Uganda Work. Pap., Suntory Toyota Int. Cent. Econ. Relat. Discip London School Econ:
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson SJ, Chandy R, Zia B 2018. Pathways to profits: the impact of marketing vs. finance skills on business performance. Manag. Sci 64125559–83
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Andrabi T, Das J, Khwaja AI 2017. Report cards: the impact of providing school and child test scores on educational markets. Am. Econ. Rev. 10761535–63
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Angelucci M, Karlan D, Zinman J 2015. Microcredit impacts: evidence from a randomized microcredit program placement experiment by Compartamos Banco. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 71151–82
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Arellano M, Bond S. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 582277–97
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Atkin D, Khandelwal AK, Osman A 2017. Exporting and firm performance: evidence from a randomized experiment. Q. J. Econ. 1322551–615
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Attanasio O, Augsburg B, De Haas R, Fitzsimons E, Harmgart H 2015. The impacts of microfinance: evidence from joint-liability lending in Mongolia. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 7190–122
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Augsburg B, De Haas R, Harmgart H, Meghir C 2015. The impacts of microcredit: evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 71183–203
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bandiera O, Hansen S, Pratt A, Sadun R 2017. CEO behavior and firm performance Work. Pap. 17–083 Harvard Bus. School Cambridge, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Banerjee A, Duflo E. 2014. Do firms want to borrow more? Testing credit constraints using a directed lending program. Rev. Econ. Stud. 812572–607
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Banerjee A, Duflo E, Glennerster R, Kinnan C 2015a. The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 7122–53
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Banerjee A, Karlan D, Zinman J 2015b. Six randomized evaluations of microcredit: introduction and further steps. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 711–21
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bassi V, Nansamba A. 2017. Information frictions in the labor market: evidence from a field experiment in Uganda Unpublished manuscript, Univ College London:
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Beaman L, Keleher N, Magruder J 2018. Do job networks disadvantage women? Evidence from a recruitment experiment in Malawi. J. Labor Econ. 361121–57
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Beaman L, Magruder J. 2012. Who gets the job referral? Evidence from a social networks experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 10273574–93
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bergquist LF. 2017. Pass-through, competition and entry in agricultural markets: experimental evidence from Kenya Work. Pap., Univ. Mich Ann Arbor:
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bernstein S, Colonnelli E, Malacrino D, McQuade T 2018. Who creates new firms when local opportunities arise? NBER Work. Pap 25112
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Blattman C, Dercon S. 2018. The impacts of industrial and entrepreneurial work on income and health: experimental evidence from Ethiopia. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 1031–38
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bloom N, Eifert B, Mahajan A, McKenzie D, Roberts J 2013. Does management matter? Evidence from India. Q. J. Econ. 12811–51
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Bloom N, Sadun R, Van Reenen J 2012. Americans do IT better: US multinationals and the productivity miracle. Am. Econ. Rev. 1021167–201
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Bloom N, Van Reenen J 2007. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Q. J. Econ. 12241351–408
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Blundell R, Bond S. 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J. Econom. 87115–43
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Boehm L, Oberfield E. 2018. Misallocation in the market for inputs: enforcement and the organization of production Work. Pap., Princeton Univ Princeton, NJ:
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Boettke PJ. 2002. Information and knowledge: Austrian economics in search of its uniqueness. Rev. Austrian Econ. 15263–74
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Brooks W, Donovan K, Johnson TR 2018. Mentors or teachers? Microenterprise training in Kenya. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 104196–221
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Bruhn M, Karlan D, Schoar A 2018. The impact of consulting services on small and medium enterprises: evidence from a randomized trial in Mexico. J. Political Econ. 1262635–87
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Busso M, Galiani S. 2019. The causal effect of competition on prices and quality: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 11133–56
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Cai J, Szeidl A. 2018. Interfirm relationships and business performance. Q. J. Econ. 13331229–82
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Campos F, Frese M, Goldstein M, Iacovone L, Johnson HC et al. 2017. Teaching personal initiative beats traditional training in boosting small business in West Africa. Science 35763571287–90
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Casaburi L, Reed T. 2017. Competition in agricultural markets: an experimental approach Work. Pap., Univ. Zurich Switz:
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Crepon B, Devoto F, Duflo E, Parienté W 2015. Estimating the impact of microcredit on those who take it up: evidence from a randomized experiment in Morocco. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 71123–50
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Cunha J, De Giorgi D, Jayachandran S 2019. The price effects of cash versus in-kind transfers. Rev. Econ. Stud. 861240–81
     [Google Scholar]
  38. De Loecker J, Goldberg PK 2014. Firm performance in the global market. Annu. Rev. Econ. 6201–27
     [Google Scholar]
  39. De Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C 2008. Returns to capital in microenterprises: evidence from a field experiment. Q. J. Econ. 12341329–72
     [Google Scholar]
  40. De Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C 2012. One-time transfers of cash or capital have long-lasting effects on microenterprises in Sri Lanka. Science 335962–66
     [Google Scholar]
  41. De Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C 2013. The demand for, and consequences of, formalization among informal firms in Sri Lanka. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 52122–50
     [Google Scholar]
  42. De Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C 2018. Micro-equity for microenterprises Work. Pap., Oxford Univ Oxford, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  43. De Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C 2019. Labor drops: experimental evidence on the return to additional labor in microenterprises. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 111202–35
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Dlugosch TJ, Klinger B, Frese M, Klehe UC 2018. Personality-based selection of entrepreneurial borrowers to reduce credit risk: two studies on prediction models in low- and high-stakes settings in developing countries. J. Organ. Behav. 395612–28
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Fafchamps M, McKenzie D, Quinn S, Woodruff C 2014. Microenterprise growth and the flypaper effect: evidence from a randomized experiment in Ghana. J. Dev. Econ. 106211–26
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Fafchamps M, Quinn S. 2016. Networks and manufacturing firms in Africa: results from a randomized field experiment. World Bank Econ. Rev. 323656–75
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fafchamps M, Woodruff C. 2017. Identifying gazelles: expert panels versus surveys as a means to identify firms with rapid growth potential. World Bank Econ. Rev. 313670–86
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ferraz C, Finan F, Szerman D 2015. Procuring firm growth: the effects of government purchases on firm dynamics NBER Work. Pap 21219
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Field E, Jayachandran S, Pande R, Nigol R 2016. Friendship at work: Can peer effects catalyze female entrepreneurship?. Am. Econ. J. Policy 82125–53
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Field E, Pande R, Papp J, Rigol N 2013. Does the classic microfinance model discourage entrepreneurship among the poor? Experimental evidence from India. Am. Econ. Rev. 10362196–226
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fischer G. 2013. Contract structure, risk-sharing, and investment choice. Econometrica 81883–939
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Gandhi A, Navarro S, Rivers D 2019. On the identification of gross output production functions. J. Political Econ. In press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Ghani E, Goswami AG, Kerr WR 2016. Highway to success: the impact of the golden quadrilateral project for the location and performance of Indian manufacturing. Econ. J. 126317–57
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Gibbons R, Henderson R. 2012. What do managers do? Exploring persistent performance differences among seemingly similar enterprises. The Handbook of Organizational Economics R Gibbons, J Roberts 680–731 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hardy M, McCasland J. 2017. Are small firms labor constrained? Experimental evidence from Ghana Work. Pap., New York Univ. Abu Dhabi, UAE
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hayek FA. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. Am. Econ. Rev. 354519–30
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hayek FA. 1988. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism WW Bartley III, ed Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Higgins S. 2018. Financial technology adoption Work. Pap., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hsieh CT, Klenow PJ. 2009. Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Q. J. Econ. 12441403–48
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hsieh CT, Olken BA. 2014. The missing “missing middle.”. J. Econ. Perspect. 28389–108
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hussam R, Rigol N, Roth BN 2017. Targeting high ability entrepreneurs using community information: mechanism design in the field PEDL Work. Pap., Cent. Econ. Policy Res Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Jensen R. 2007. The digital provide: information (technology), market performance and welfare in the South Indian fisheries sector. Q. J. Econ. 1223879–924
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Jensen R, Miller NH. 2018. Market integration, demand and the growth of firms: evidence from a natural experiment in India. Am. Econ. Rev. 108123583–625
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kahneman D, Klein G. 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am. Psychol. 64515–26
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Karlan D, Zinman J. 2011. Microcredit in theory and practice: using randomized credit scoring for impact evaluation. Science 33260351278–84
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Karlan D, Zinman J. 2019. Long-run price elasticities of demand for microcredit: Evidence from a countrywide field experiment in Mexico. Rev. Econ. Stud. In press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Kerr W, Lerner J, Schoar A 2014a. The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: evidence from angel financings. Rev. Financ. Stud. 27120–55
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kerr W, Nanada R, Rhodes-Kropf M 2014b. Entrepreneurship as experimentation. J. Econ. Perspect. 28325–48
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Klinger B, Schündeln M. 2011. Can entrepreneurial activity be taught? Quasi-experimental evidence from Central America. World Dev 3991592–610
     [Google Scholar]
  70. La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny R 1997. Trust in large organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. 872333–38
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lafortune J, Perticará M, Tessada J 2018. The benefits of diversity: peer effects in an adult training program in Chile Work. Pap., Pontif. Univ. Catól. Chile Santiago:
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lagakos D. 2016. Explaining cross-country productivity differences in retail trade. J. Political Econ. 1242579–620
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lagakos D, Moll B, Porzio T, Qian N, Schoellman T 2018. Life cycle wage growth across countries. J. Political Econ. 1262797–849
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Leaven L, Woodruff C. 2007. The quality of the legal system, firm ownership, and firm size. Rev. Econ. Stat. 894601–14
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lemos R, Scur D. 2018. All in the family? CEO choice and firm organization Discuss. Pap. CEPDP1528, Cent. Econ. Perform London School Econ:
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Levinsohn J, Petrin A. 2003. Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev. Econ. Stud. 702317–41
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Macchiavello R, Menzel A, Rabbani A, Woodruff C 2018. Challenges of change: an experiment training women to manage in the Bangladeshi garment sector Work. Pap., Oxford Univ Oxford, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  78. McCaig B, Pavcnik N. 2016. Out with the old and unproductive, in with the new and similarly unproductive GLM|LIC Work. Pap. 23, Inst. Labor Econ Bonn, Ger:
     [Google Scholar]
  79. McKenzie D. 2017a. How effective are active labor market policies in developing countries? A critical review of recent evidence. World Bank Res. Obs. 322127–54
     [Google Scholar]
  80. McKenzie D. 2017b. Identifying and spurring high-growth entrepreneurship: experimental evidence from a business plan competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 10782278–307
     [Google Scholar]
  81. McKenzie D, Sansone D. 2017. Man vs. machine in predicting successful entrepreneurs: evidence from a business plan competition in Nigeria Policy Res. Work. Pap. WPS 8271 World Bank Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  82. McKenzie D, Woodruff C. 2008. Experimental evidence on returns to capital and access to finance in Mexico. World Bank Econ. Rev. 223457–82
     [Google Scholar]
  83. McKenzie D, Woodruff C. 2013. What are we learning from business training and entrepreneurship evaluations around the developing world?. World Bank Res. Obs. 29148–82
     [Google Scholar]
  84. McKenzie D, Woodruff C. 2017. Business practices in small firms in developing countries. Manag. Sci. 6392967–81
     [Google Scholar]
  85. McMillan J, Woodruff C. 1999. Interfirm relationships and informal credit in Vietnam. Q. J. Econ. 11441285–320
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Meager R. 2018. Aggregating distributional treatment effects: a Bayesian hierarchical analysis of the microcredit literature Work. Pap London Sch. Econ:
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Meager R. 2019. Understanding the average impact of microcredit expansions: a Bayesian hierarchical analysis of seven randomized experiments. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 11157–91
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Mitra S, Mookherjee D, Torero M, Visaria S 2018. Asymmetric information and middleman margins: an experiment with Indian potato farmers. Rev. Econ. Stat. 10011–13
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Oğuz F. 2010. Hayek on tacit knowledge. J. Inst. Econ. 62145–65
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Olley GS, Pakes A. 1996. The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 641263–97
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Rajan RG, Zingales L. 1998. Financial dependence and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 883559–86
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Tarozzi A, Desai J, Johnson K 2015. The impacts of microcredit: evidence from Ethiopia. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 7154–89
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Tendler J. 1997. Good Government in the Tropics Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. , 1st ed.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Tendler J, Alves M. 1996. Small firms and their helpers: lessons on demand. World Dev 243407–26
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Ulyssea G. 2018. Firms, informality, and development: theory and evidence from Brazil. Am. Econ. Rev. 10882015–47
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Witte M. 2018. Job referrals and strategic network formation: experimental evidence from urban neighbourhoods in Ethiopia Work. Pap., Oxford Univ Oxford, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Yunus M. 1989. Grameen Bank: organization and operation. Microenterprises in Developing Countries J Levitsky 144–61 London: Intermed. Technol. Publ
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030246
Loading

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error