Back to History

Fields Changed

Registration

Field Before After
Trial Status in_development completed
Trial End Date September 30, 2022 December 31, 2022
Last Published November 21, 2021 10:31 PM April 15, 2023 01:36 PM
Intervention End Date September 30, 2022 December 31, 2022
Primary Outcomes (End Points) 1. Income from all sources (both from the intervention and additional sources) 2. Aspirations (for both income and assets) 1. Income from all sources (both from the intervention and additional sources) 2. Aspirations (for both income and assets) Updated additional outcome: 3. Expenditures
Primary Outcomes (Explanation) 1. Youth will be surveyed and asked about their income sources from both the intervention and other additional activities. Treatment youth will be asked about both sources while control youth will be asked only about other income generating activities. Income was calculated by asking about total revenue earned from and total costs incurred from specific activities. By subtracting total costs from total revenue, we will have the income generated from all income sources. Total income will simply be an aggregation of income generated from each activity. We also asked about the main times of the year of these receipts from each income generating activities. 2. Aspirations will be measured as suggested by Bernard and Taffesse (2014). We will ask about what are the maximum and minimum monetary values possible for both personal income and assets. Participants will then be asked about their current level and aspired levels for the value of both dimensions. We acknowledge that directly asking about their aspirations could bias our results since they are self-reported values. However, aspirations are subjective in nature and not directly observable. Bernard and Taffesse (2014) recommend asking about aspirations as previously described for framing purposes. First, asking respondents about what is possible in their communities and then reminding them of their current level and finally asking them about a realistic goal. This approach has been used and replicated by numerous studies in the literature (for examples see Bernard et al., 2014; Janzen et al., 2017; Larue et al., 2021) References: Bernard, T., Dercon, S., Orkin, K., & Tafesse, A. S. (2014). The Future in Mind: Aspirations and Forward-Looking Behaviour in Ethiopia. CSAE Working Paper no. 2014-16, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford. Bernard, T., & Taffesse, A. S. (2014). Aspirations: An Approach to Measurement with Validation Using Ethiopian Data. Journal of African Economies, 23(2), 1–36. Janzen, S. A., Magnan, N., Sharma, S., & Thompson, W. M. (2017). Aspirations failure and formation in rural Nepal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 139, 1–25. LaRue, K., Daum, T., Mausch, K., & Harris, D. (2021). Who wants to farm? Answers depend on how you ask: A case study on youth aspirations in Kenya. The European Journal of Development Research, 1-25. 1. Youth will be surveyed and asked about their income sources from both the intervention and other additional activities. Treatment youth will be asked about both sources while control youth will be asked only about other income generating activities. Income was calculated by asking about total revenue earned from and total costs incurred from specific activities. By subtracting total costs from total revenue, we will have the income generated from all income sources. Total income will simply be an aggregation of income generated from each activity. We also asked about the main times of the year of these receipts from each income generating activities. 2. Aspirations will be measured as suggested by Bernard and Taffesse (2014). We will ask about what are the maximum and minimum monetary values possible for both personal income and assets. Participants will then be asked about their current level and aspired levels for the value of both dimensions. We acknowledge that directly asking about their aspirations could bias our results since they are self-reported values. However, aspirations are subjective in nature and not directly observable. Bernard and Taffesse (2014) recommend asking about aspirations as previously described for framing purposes. First, asking respondents about what is possible in their communities and then reminding them of their current level and finally asking them about a realistic goal. This approach has been used and replicated by numerous studies in the literature (for examples see Bernard et al., 2014; Janzen et al., 2017; Larue et al., 2021) References: Bernard, T., Dercon, S., Orkin, K., & Tafesse, A. S. (2014). The Future in Mind: Aspirations and Forward-Looking Behaviour in Ethiopia. CSAE Working Paper no. 2014-16, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford. Bernard, T., & Taffesse, A. S. (2014). Aspirations: An Approach to Measurement with Validation Using Ethiopian Data. Journal of African Economies, 23(2), 1–36. Janzen, S. A., Magnan, N., Sharma, S., & Thompson, W. M. (2017). Aspirations failure and formation in rural Nepal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 139, 1–25. LaRue, K., Daum, T., Mausch, K., & Harris, D. (2021). Who wants to farm? Answers depend on how you ask: A case study on youth aspirations in Kenya. The European Journal of Development Research, 1-25. 3. After pre-testing our baseline survey, we decided that in addition to income, prior monthly expenditures were a good measure of economic welfare in addition to income. Our expenditure variable is a total of multiple forms of expenditures.
Secondary Outcomes (End Points) 1. Better Business Practices 2. Value of sales 3. Treatment youth aspirations (for number of customers and value of sales) 1. Better Business Practices (we decided this was not relevant to our study given the fact that control youth were not asked these questions given that none of them were exposed to the treatment) 2. Value of sales 3. Treatment youth aspirations (for number of customers and value of sales) (we decided that this outcome was not relevant during the baseline survey and as such will not be used in a formal analysis) 4. Subjective feeling of income
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation) 1. To measure better business practices, we adapt a list of 18 appropriate questions to measure better practices from the one used in McKenzie and Woodruff (2017). A respondent’s answer to each question is assigned a one or zero with one meaning they are currently implementing the associated business practice. This variable represents the aggregate number of business practices being employed with a maximum possible score of 18 and minimum of 0. 2. Value of sales is measured as the aggregation of the value of sales for each input sold. The value of sales for each input was calculated as the number of units multiplied by the price at which the associated input was sold. 3. Aspirations were measured for value of sales and number of customers for treatment youth only. The reason for this is that treatment youth had no current levels of either dimension so they will not be included in this part of the analysis. We employ the same approach outlined in the ‘primary outcomes explanation’ section. References: McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2017). Business Practices in Small Firms in Developing Countries. Management Science, 63(9), 2967–2981. 1. To measure better business practices, we adapt a list of 18 appropriate questions to measure better practices from the one used in McKenzie and Woodruff (2017). A respondent’s answer to each question is assigned a one or zero with one meaning they are currently implementing the associated business practice. This variable represents the aggregate number of business practices being employed with a maximum possible score of 18 and minimum of 0. 2. Value of sales is measured as the aggregation of the value of sales for each input sold. The value of sales for each input was calculated as the number of units multiplied by the price at which the associated input was sold. 3. Aspirations were measured for value of sales and number of customers for treatment youth only. The reason for this is that treatment youth had no current levels of either dimension so they will not be included in this part of the analysis. We employ the same approach outlined in the ‘primary outcomes explanation’ section. 4. We added this measure of subjective well-being towards income to our intermediate outcomes to examine if self-beliefs were consistent with aspirations post-treatment. Specifically, we asked youth if they felt that there income was higher in the year after treatment compared to the year pre-treatment. References: McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2017). Business Practices in Small Firms in Developing Countries. Management Science, 63(9), 2967–2981.
Back to top