This means that charging higher prices for the course, even at a fraction of its actual cost, discourages an important share of entrepreneurs from taking it.<sup>16</sup> In Columns (3) and (6) we see that the credit and discount frame treatments do not have significant effects on demand. The fact that credit does not play an important role affecting demand is in line with the sample not reporting significant credit constraints at the full cost of the course. However, the interaction of credit and discount frame has a significant negative effect on the probability of paying (Column 6), but not on willingness to pay (Column 3). One possibility is that the combination of discount and credit was perceived as a negative signal of the quality of the course, but it has to be a signal that affects only actual payment, since we do not see effects in willingness to pay.

Figure 1 presents a graphical illustration of the demand schedule based on elicited willingness to pay in the BDM sample, by treatment arm. We see demand is similar across treatment arms at most price levels. If anything, the discount framing alone reduces demand at higher price levels, perhaps because the discount implied is not that high. The first row of Table 7 presents detailed summary statistics by price offered. We find that 32 percent of the sample report a willingness to pay at least as high as the full cost of the course; 78 percent report being willing to pay a price as high as half of the cost of the course, and 94 percent a price of 25 percent of the cost. Figure 2 adds to the previous plot the demand schedule by using actual payment of the offered price as a measure of demand. Only 7 percent of those who are offered a price equal to the cost of the course actually pay it (11 percent paid a positive amount at that price, but less than the full price). 12 percent of those offered a price that is 75% of the cost of the course pay it, and still only 40 percent pay if assigned an offer price of 50% of the cost of the course.

Panel A of Figure 3 plots the demand schedule by credit treatment (pooling the two groups with and without discount frame treatment). We can see that, while the overall impact of credit was not significant, there is heterogeneity by price paid. On the one hand, for prices below J$10,000 (half of the cost of the course), credit hampered actual payment, but the effect is not very large and it is not statistically significant. On the other hand, for the two highest prices, credit significantly increased the probability of paying, which might indicate the existence of some liquidity constraints in the sample at these amounts.<sup>17</sup>

> overestimated since a large share of the sample does not attend the training even when it is offered free of cost. Coefficients expressed in terms of extra reductions from demand at J$1,000 are: 0.02, 0.055, 0.045, 0.038, and 0.031, respectively.

> 16It is important to note that the logistical fixed costs of paying a positive amount were not high, since everyone was allowed to pay when they came to the first session of the training.

> 17It is important to reiterate that the credit treatment does not affect elicited willingness to pay at any price.

16