NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
Grass-roots Entrepreneurship Education & Pro-Poor Enterprise Development
Last registered on February 22, 2017


Trial Information
General Information
Grass-roots Entrepreneurship Education & Pro-Poor Enterprise Development
Initial registration date
February 22, 2017
Last updated
February 22, 2017 4:28 PM EST
Primary Investigator
University of Sydney
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
This study provides a randomized impact evaluation of the "Grass-roots Entrepreneurship Education & Pro-Poor Enterprise Development" program that was implemented in Myanmar in 2014-2016. The training program is unique in focusing on helping participants explore new entrepreneurial opportunities in their existing business or in starting a new business. The program also takes into consideration the evidence from recent evaluations of microenterprise training programs, by providing intensive, multi-month training, making the program engaging and relevant, and incorporating elements of mentorship and customized advice. Hence the study provides evidence on the impacts of an entrepreneurship-oriented, intensive training program in a country experiencing rapid political and economic change.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Toth, Russell. 2017. "Grass-roots Entrepreneurship Education & Pro-Poor Enterprise Development." AEA RCT Registry. February 22. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2035-1.0.
Former Citation
Toth, Russell. 2017. "Grass-roots Entrepreneurship Education & Pro-Poor Enterprise Development." AEA RCT Registry. February 22. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2035/history/14312.
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details
Intensive entrepreneurship training and mentoring program.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
The outcomes are customized to the theory of change motivating the intervention:
1 Changes in knowledge (do participants learn the material?)
2. Changes in practices related to entrepreneurship (starting a business, social interaction with other entrepreneurs, business operations, financial management)
3. Changes in enterprise performance (output, revenue, profit, cost reduction, market expansion)
4. Changes in household outcomes and welfare (income, satisfaction, child education, health, changes in household assets)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
-Household income is constructed as the sum of sources of household income.
-Risk and time preference measures are derived from standard list experiments.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The study uses an over-recruitment design to randomly select willing participants to access the program in a given year.
Experimental Design Details
In both 2014 and 2015, the study involves taking advantage of oversubscription of the program (i.e., more people apply for the program in certain regions, than the organization has capacity to train). Out of interest of fairness, interested participants are randomly selected to access the program in a given year, or asked to wait for a guaranteed spot in the program in the subsequent year. This leads to a randomly-selected treatment group, such that main treatment impacts can be estimated using ITT.
Randomization Method
Randomization done on Stata, with those selected for Treatment invited to join the first training session.
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
2014: 800 individuals
2015: 2500 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
2014: 800 individuals 2015: 2500 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Randomization procedure generally leads to 60-90% of applicants being selected for treatment in each location, with a sample average of 65-70%.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The 2014 trial is considered a pilot, and in consideration of attrition rate (30-40%) is only powered to detect effect sizes of 0.5 sds. The 2015 trial, in consideration of attrition rate (30-40%) is powered to detect effect sizes of 0.2 sds on most outcomes.
IRB Name
University of Sydney Human Ethics
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Is the intervention completed?
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)