Impact Evaluation of the Entreprenant Status in Cotonou

Last registered on April 12, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Impact Evaluation of the Entreprenant Status in Cotonou
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000515
Initial registration date
October 07, 2014

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
October 07, 2014, 4:30 AM EDT

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

Last updated
April 12, 2018, 9:11 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
World Bank

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
World Bank
PI Affiliation
World Bank
PI Affiliation
World Bank

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2014-03-04
End date
2016-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
In developing countries a large majority of small and medium firms operate in the informal sector. In Benin, this is particularly the case and the national statistics agency estimated that the informal sector represented in 2009 up to 70% of the GDP and 95% of employment. This evaluation takes advantage of the creation of a new legal status for small firms by the Government of Benin to study the impact of three different packages of formalization incentives on formalization rate and firm performances. 3,600 informal businesses operating in Cotonou have been randomly allocated into three treatment and one control groups. A first treatment group will only receive information about the new status and the fact that direct and indirect costs of formalization have been highly reduced. A second group of businesses will receive the same information plus access to business training and bank services (access to a bank account) as further incentives to formalize. On a top of that, a last treatment group will have access to tax mediation services. The evaluation goal is to answer the following research questions (i) Do firms voluntarily move into the formal sector if costs of formalization are highly reduced? (ii) What is the optimal package of incentives to increase formalization? (iii) To what extent the fear of tax administration is an important barrier to formalization? (iv) What is the effect of becoming formal on firm performance and access to credit?
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Benhassine, Najy et al. 2018. "Impact Evaluation of the Entreprenant Status in Cotonou." AEA RCT Registry. April 12. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.515-4.0
Former Citation
Benhassine, Najy et al. 2018. "Impact Evaluation of the Entreprenant Status in Cotonou." AEA RCT Registry. April 12. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/515/history/28126
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The Entreprenant status is a new Legal status for small firms offers by the Governement of Benin. Direct and indirect cost are much lower with this new status than with the existing ones. This project is studying different packages of incentives to formalization accompanying this new status.
Intervention (Hidden)
The objective of the project is to understand the determinants of formality in Benin, where the majority of businesses are informal and owned by individual entrepreneurs.

Context:
OHADA member countries (Organisation pour l'Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires) have adopted a revised General Commercial Law in December 2010, which came into force in May 2011. Among other provisions, the new law introduced the legal framework for the entreprenant status, a simplified legal regime for small entrepreneurs that aims at facilitating the migration of businesses operating in the informal sector into the formal sector. However, the law did not explicit how the entreprenant status would practically function, nor the specific combination of incentives that it would include, allowing instead each country to fill in the vacuum through ad-hoc secondary legislation. Benin, a member of OHADA, is currently implementing the legal and administrative regulation that will define the entreprenant status.

Details of the intervention:
The entreprenant status can be considered as a package of incentives to formalization that the Government offers to small business. The ongoing implementation of the entreprenant status in Cotonou offers the ideal conditions to study the impact of different packages of incentives on formalization decisions, the legal environment in which firms operate, and how businesses interact with public authorities. Also, it can show the impact of different firms and entrepreneur characteristics as determinants of formalization, and whether specific incentives carry any tangible benefits for the firm and its growth prospects.

The impact evaluation of the entreprenant status tests the three following packages of formalization incentives:
Package A of incentives includes the following components:
• Regulatory simplification: a streamlined business registration process, including a reduction in number of steps, time and cost to register;
• Provision of information on the new registration system: information on the new system is given in-person to business owners;
• Provision of tax information: information and clarification on the existing tax regimes applicable to the Entreprenants.

Package B of incentives includes the following components:
• Services and training: services include support to entrepreneurs in the formalization process and, for example, help in drafting financial statements and business plans; support in bookkeeping; training include basic accounting and business management, initiation to legal and tax obligations;
• Support with bank services: creation of a bank account (checking or saving) with a commercial bank.

Package C of incentives includes the following components:
• Provision of tax returns certification and tax mediation/counseling services: support on preparing and certifying the tax declarations; provision of safeguards against arbitrary practices from the tax administration through mediation services between Entreprenants and the tax authority.

Theory of change:
The key assumption of the entreprenant status is that it will encourage formalization by making business registration and operations simple, cheap and fast. Much of the literature has focused on easing business start-up regulations, and it has found that large improvements in the ease of start-up are associated with more companies registering. There is less evidence on the formalization of smaller enterprises. A reform in Mexico, which was implemented in some of the most populous and economically developed municipalities starting in 2002, reduced the number of days taken to start a business from 30.1 to 1.4 on average. Bruhn (2011) used data on individuals’ employment status from the Mexican Labor Market Survey (ENE) to show that this reform increased the number of registered business owners by 5 percent. However, recent information campaigns following simplification of registration requirements have resulted in very few informal firms registering.

At the same time, there may be incentives other than easing the regulations to register that could attract the informal sector into formality. For instance, the main drawback firms typically see from formalizing is the taxes they expect they will have to pay. In most countries, informal firms view tax revenues as minimally beneficial to themselves, their families or their community. They also worry about the risks of harassment from inspectors. To our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence of the effect of tax mediation/protection that would directly address these issues. These features of the entreprenant program will explicitly test this question of tax mediation/protection.

While formalization itself is an outcome of interest, this study will attempt to uncover the channels by which formalization may improve firm performance. First, bank financing is often hypothesized as one of the major channels through which formalization can improve firm performance, yet randomized experiments measuring formalization in Sri Lanka and Brazil have recorded no significant increase in the number of bank credits awarded to firms becoming formal. One possible reason is that newly formalized firms require more than just their formal certification, but also facilitation and access to banks. This access to credit is important as McKenzie and Woodruff (2008) demonstrate. Using evidence from Mexico, they show that relieving credit constraints leads to increased returns to capital by 20-30%, on average, and 70-79% among those firms that reported being financially constrained. Hence, offering firms much more hands-on support in accessing bank financing could make formalization much more attractive and beneficial to firms.

Second, formality may offer small firms the ability to pool risk, thus attracting more educated workers who engage in longer term relationships with the firm. This, in turn, makes training and capital acquisition more profitable. Additionally, formalization may incentivize businesses to invest in a fixed locale, permitting expansion of capital and employment. Fajnzylber et al. (2011) examine these channels in an evaluation of Brazil’s formalization program, SIMPLES. They find that the large increases observed in firm performance due to formality may indeed be driven by these factors. They find that formality increases firm employment by 40-50% and increases the probability of having a fixed location by a 30-50%, leading to large increases in revenues and profits. Similarly, in Viet Nam, firms that decided to formalize in the period 2007-2009 saw an increase in their profits and investments compared to similar firms that remained informal. McKenzie and Sakho (2010) find evidence in Bolivia that firms that become formal issue more tax receipts and have greater sales. De Mel et al. (2013) find that firms in Sri Lanka are more likely to advertise, while Bruhn and McKenzie (2013) highlight that the literature shows that formalizing may help firms to expand their customer base. These studies underline the fact that these and other important channels may exist by which firms interact with formalized status to attain higher performance.

In addition, formalization may have a gender dimension worth being explored, the evaluation aims at looking whether or the entreprenant program is more effective for women. In order to do so, the team will stratify the randomization by gender of the firm owner. In addition, the team will analyze whether the program can improve women empowerment.

Finally, one important limitation in the existing literature on both the effect of entry regulation on formalization, and the effect of formalization on performance, is its focus on evidence from Latin America and Southeast Asia. The impact evaluation of the entreprenant status in Benin will provide rigorous evidence on the impacts of formalization in an African context.


Intervention Start Date
2014-04-29
Intervention End Date
2016-07-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The key outcomes of interest are:
• Formalization rate
• Business performance (i.e. increased turnover, increased profits, increased investments).

Intermediary outcomes include:
• Improved business skills
• Improved accounting systems
• Increased level of trust
• Increased access to new markets
• Increased level of advertising
• Increased access to banking
• Increased number of tax payments
• Increased amount of tax paid

Long-term impact indicators are:
• Increased employment
• Better standards of living

These outcomes will be measured through in-person interviews with firm owners. One survey was conducted in early 2014 prior to program implementation. A first follow up survey will be done after one year and an endline survey will measure medium term impact 2 years after program implementation. The survey instruments will be designed to measure all of these outcomes and to understand the underlying mechanisms.
Administrative data on formalization from the GUFE are also collected every month and matched to the baseline survey data. These data will allow us to look at the impact on formalization every month.
Data will be also collected on program implementation to better understand the quality of the programs. This will include detailed monitoring data from the CGA and qualitative surveys to understand success and/or failure in the various treatment groups.
Finally, in order to conduct a cost effectiveness analysis, data on program costs will also be collected.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experimental design will adress the following research questions:
• Do firms voluntarily move into the formal sector if the costs of formalization are highly reduced?
• What is the optimal package of incentives to increase formalization?
• To what extent the fear of tax administration is an important barrier to formalization?
• What is the effect of becoming formal on firm performance and access to credit?

To do so, the evaluation will use a randomized control trial (RCT) methodology with a firm level randomization.
Experimental Design Details
1- Selection of the study population:
In order to select the study population, a listing survey was conducted in Cotonou. This survey was designed in order to get a representative sample of all business operating in Cotonou including Dantokpa market (the largest market in Benin and one of the largest in West Africa). All firms with fixed location excepting international and nationwide companies were targeted. 7,945 businesses were successfully surveyed.
A population of 3,600 businesses was then selected to participate to the study based on the following goals:
• Drop firms already formal.
• Drop firms that will probably not cooperate in the future or which will be probably difficult to find.
• Try to trim the database from (a) firms very close to formalization who would have formalize anyway and (b) firms very far from formalization which would not be interested by the program.
• Remove firms that will most probably not been interested.
• Reduce the standard deviation of the main outcomes (profit and sales).

The 3,600 firms selected for the study have very similar characteristics to the other informal firm not selected. It means that even with these selection criteria, the study kept a good external validity.

2- Evaluation design
The 3,600 informal businesses were then randomly allocated into 3 treatment groups and one control group. Data collected during the listing survey on important firm characteristics were used for the stratification (see below for more details).
In Group 1, firms will only receive package A of incentives. That is only the information on the new status, on how to formalize and on tax system applicable to the new status.
In Group 2, firms will receive package A and package B of incentives. Thus these firms will receive package A and additional incentives to formalization like access to business trainings and services and support to open a bank account in a commercial bank.
In Group 3, firms will receive package A, package B and package C of incentives. So in addition to what will receive firms in group 2, they will also receive tax mediation services.
In Group 0, firms will not receive any information or incentives. This group will serve as a control group.
Randomization Method
The randomization was done in office using STATA.
The following methodology was used for stratification:
16 strata were created using the variables: Firm owner gender, firm operating in Dantokpa market, trader and firm owner a bank account.
Then inside each stratum a Z-score was created as the average of standardized profit, sale and number of employee. Based on this Z-score, triplets of firms were created and inside each triplet, firms were randomly allocated to 3 groups: group 0, group "1&2", and group3. Each group included 1,200 firms.
Finally, the 1,200 firms in group "1&2" were randomly allocated into group 1 with 300 firms and group 2 with 900 firms.


Randomization Unit
Randomization at the firm level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
No Cluster (Firm level randomization)
Sample size: planned number of observations
3,600 businesses operating in Cotonou
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Group 1 (only package A) : 300 businesses
Group 2 (packages A+B): 900 businesses
Group 3 (packages A+B+C): 900 businesses
Control group: 1200 businesses
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The sample size of 3,600 firms has been calculated to meet two goals: • High statistical power to detect small changes in formalization rates; • Sufficient statistical power to analyze the effect of being formal on firm performances, assuming that the program has an effect on formalization (i.e., formal businesses increase at least by 25 percentage point). Assuming that at most 10% of the businesses in the control group formalize during the study period, a sample size of 1,000 in each treatment group would give us a power of 91.3% to detect a 5 percentage point increase in the formalization rate. Our target is a 25 percentage point increase in formalization, in order to get sufficient take-up of formality and examine impacts of being formal on other firm outcomes. It would also yield the same power to detect a 5 percentage point increase in the proportion of firms paying taxes or receiving a bank loan. To examine power for continuous outcomes like firm profitability, or amount of sales, we use the data collected during the listing/baseline survey. In this data, standard deviations of both profits and sales are equal to the mean. It means that if the treatment leads to a 25 percentage point increase in the formalization rate, with a baseline and two rounds of follow-up data, using ANCOVA, we will have 81.2% power to detect a 36% increase in firm profits from formalizing. The above power calculations assume a 100% take up rate and no attrition, but these assumptions may be unrealistic given the context. However, program take-up is likely to be very high because the organization in charge of the program is likely to be able to get in touch with most of the informal businesses to deliver the different treatments. If we expect to reach 95% of informal businesses with our intervention (the “take up-rate”), then we would need a sample of 1,108 in order to detect a 5 percentage points increase in formalization rates [1/(0.95)^2)*1000]. In addition, we may “lose” part of the sample due to attrition (i.e. businesses that we cannot survey during the follow-up surveys). We think that we will be able to keep the attrition rate below 10% (since we are only targeting businesses with a fixed location it seems a realistic assumption). With 10% attrition and a take-up rate of 95%, we get our sample size of 1,200 informal businesses in each of the three groups, two treatment groups and one control (and one treatment group further split in two sets of 300 and 900 businesses), for a total number of 3,600 informal businesses.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Pre-Analysis Plan Entreprenant Status March 2015

MD5: 6af4b1a05664b4b4a8d2450f99406b22

SHA1: 0ee672ce3781bd55805d5c068bce37ee463b8850

Uploaded At: March 24, 2015

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
February 15, 2015, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
July 01, 2016, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
3,596 business owners at baseline, Two follow-up surveys were conducted in April–June 2015, and in
May–June 2016. Attrition rates at first and second follow-up surveys
were 11.8% and 15.9 respectively and were not correlated with treatment
status
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Group 0 (control): 1,197 business owners. Group 1: 301. Group 2: 899. Group 3: 1,199.
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
Yes

Program Files

Program Files
Yes
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Abstract
Efforts to bring informal firms into the formal sector are often based on a view that this will bring benefits to the firms themselves, or at least benefit governments through increasing the tax base. A randomized experiment based around the introduction of the entreprenant legal status in Benin is used to test these assumptions, along with supplementary efforts to enhance the presumed benefits of formalizing to firms. Few firms register when just given information about the new regime, but our full package of supplementary efforts boosts formalization by 16.3 percentage points. However, this formalization does not bring firms higher sales or profits, and the cost of formalizing these firms exceeds the added taxation they will pay over the next decade. We show how better targeting of these policies towards firms that look more like formal firms to begin with can increase the formalization rate and improve cost-effectiveness.
Citation
Benhassine, N., McKenzie, D., Pouliquen, V., and Santini, M. "Does Inducing Informal Firms to Formalize Make Sense? Experimental Evidence from Benin”. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 1-14, January 2018.

Reports & Other Materials