Group vs. individual livelihoods: Can the graduation model help mitigate information asymmetries that hinder group enterprise development?

Last registered on June 17, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Group vs. individual livelihoods: Can the graduation model help mitigate information asymmetries that hinder group enterprise development?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013583
Initial registration date
May 30, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 17, 2024, 2:56 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Dean Karlan
Affiliation
Northwestern University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Dean Karlan
PI Affiliation
Northwestern University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Jonathan de Quidt
PI Affiliation
Queen Mary University of London
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Gharad Bryan
PI Affiliation
London School of Economics
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Christopher Udry
PI Affiliation
Northwestern University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-03-04
End date
2026-01-10
Keywords
Behavior, Finance & Microfinance, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The graduation model has demonstrated consistent evidence of cost-effectiveness in uplifting ultra-poor households’ livelihoods, though these often remain household enterprises. Graduation models, with intensive coaching, training, and group aspects, may facilitate forming larger, jointly-owned, enterprises. We test group versus individual livelihoods while providing coaching to address hypothesized information-asymmetry barriers to forming equity-sharing group enterprises. We also compare large and small grants, to test for increasing returns to investment above certain thresholds. We will examine process changes, such as whether more participants choose to start group enterprises, short-run business outcomes, and group dynamics, as well as longer-term livelihood profits and household wellbeing.
Leveraging the 20-year Philippines Socioeconomic Panel Survey, we track individual, household, and community-level at regular intervals of 4 years. We seek partial funding for a follow-up survey 4 months post-intervention, complemented by management data from the implementing partner, to enhance our understanding of medium-term impacts of the program.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bryan, Gharad et al. 2024. "Group vs. individual livelihoods: Can the graduation model help mitigate information asymmetries that hinder group enterprise development?." AEA RCT Registry. June 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13583-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2024-04-01
Intervention End Date
2025-01-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
This RCT is primarily focused on household welfare outcomes and individual psycho-social outcomes, which will be measured through the in-person follow-up survey that is the focus of this proposal. Key outcomes at the household level include monthly income, monthly consumption per capita, savings and borrowing, productive assets, labor, and food security. At an individual level we will measure subjective well-being, life satisfaction, subjective socio-economic status, community engagement and trust, and risk preferences. These will be combined with intermediary outcomes from a business health survey and monitoring data, including proportion of participants that elect to set up a group business, business survival, revenue growth, profitability, and indicators of business group dynamics including decision-making processes, division of labor and specialization within teams, profit-sharing, and collaboration among group members.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
See the attached protocol.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by computer with R software.
Randomization Unit
Barangay (Philippines' municipality)
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
405 communities
Sample size: planned number of observations
N = 6,075 participants in 405 communities
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1,215 participants in 81 communities in each of the 3 treatment arms, and 2,430 in 162 communities in the control group.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Given standard assumptions of power set to 0.8, statistical significance of 0.05, intra-cluster correlation of 0.07, take up/compliance rate of 93% and a variance of 1, our study is powered to detect a minimum detectable effect size of 0.14 standard deviations when comparing each treatment arm to the control, and 0.16 standard deviations when comparing the group-encouraged business treatment arm to the individual business treatment arm.
Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Innovations for Poverty Action Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2023-12-04
IRB Approval Number
00006083
Analysis Plan