However, some marginal improvements in social support were observed in both conditions ( _d_ PI=0.09, SE=0.05, _p_ =.057; _d_ II=0.09, SE=0.05, _p_ =.077).

On an exploratory basis we assess which variables contributed to the observed effect on the composite index in the Interpersonal Initiative condition. There, we see significant improvements in women’s relationship dynamics with their households ( _d_ II=0.10, SE=0.04, _p_ =.021) and directionally but not significant improvements in dynamics with their partners ( _d_ II=0.08, SE=0.05, _p_ =.102). Specifically, women in the Interpersonal Initiative condition rated themselves as feeling closer to their households ( β =0.11, SE=0.04, _p_ =.008).

These positive impacts on household dynamics are also consistent with observed positive impacts on household businesses in the Interpersonal Initiative condition. For a randomly selected subsample of households (approximately one-fifth, N=457), we were able to collect data on off-farm businesses owned and managed by other members of the household, in addition to those owned by women participants (Table S8). Among women assigned to the Interpersonal Initiative intervention, those household-owned businesses showed greater business outcomes overall (dII=0.30, SE=0.13, p=0.023), including business engagement (dII=0.28, SE=0.14, p=0.039) and business performance (dII=0.21, SE=0.13, p=0.099). For instance, while those in the control condition saw revenues of household business amounting to approximately US$70 PPP in the past month and those in the Personal Initiative intervention saw revenues of US$83 PPP (SE=21.56, pPI=.527), those in the Interpersonal Initiative intervention saw revenues of US$111 PPP (SE=24.53, pII=.093).<sup>13</sup> Although directionally positive, no significant effect on household-owned businesses was observed among households in which women were assigned to Personal Initiative intervention (business omnibus index: dPI=0.19, SE=0.13, p=0.142).

Responses to one question in the Interpersonal Initiative intervention may help explain why household-owned businesses also grew in that condition. As part of the guided exercise, women were asked about strategies for navigating conflict in the household and maintaining harmony, as follows: “If a woman’s husband was resistant to her engagement in business, what would you advise her to say to her husband?”. One woman responded, for instance, “I would advise her to negotiate with her husband and explain to him the advantages of business development for the education of their children and the well-being of their household.” This suggests that this intervention condition helped women become better equipped to engage in negotiated agency (Adjei, 2019), building shared aspirations with their husbands and family members and possibly inspiring them to engage in more economic activity as well.

Notably, while there was some evidence that the Interpersonal Initiative intervention led to an increase in other household members’ economic activity, there was no evidence that either agency intervention affected other aspects of how women ran their business. For instance, women were no more likely to be more collaborative in their businesses in the Interpersonal or Personal Initiative condition. In the control condition, on average women worked with 0.24 other people outside the household on their business, and this did not differ in either intervention condition ( β PI=0.04, t(2474)=0.95, _p_ =.342; β II=-0.12, t(2474)=-0.29, _p_ =.772).

The Personal Initiative intervention did not have a significant effect on other relational outcomes, nor did the Interpersonal Initiative intervention affect relational outcomes related to women’s relationship to their broader community, including social standing ( _d_ PI=0.03, SE=0.05, _p_ =.527; _d_ II=0.05, SE=0.05, _p_ =.318), or social cohesion ( _d_ PI=-0.05, SE=0.05, _p_ =.300; _d_ II=0.00, SE=0.05, _p_ =.982). In addition, there was no effect of either intervention on women’s control

> 13 Monetary amounts are PPP-adjusted USD terms, set at 2016 prices and deflated using Niger’s CPI published by the World Bank. In 2016, 1 USD = 242.553 XOF PPP.

19