to the survey.

In the Online Appendix, we show that the franchise treatment increased the likelihood of working in the salon or beauty sector at endline; otherwise, neither the franchise treatment nor the grant treatment had a significant impact on occupational sector at endline. We also find no evidence of impacts on labor market churning: women assigned to treatment are not more likely to have either started or closed a business between midline and endline, nor are they more likely to have left a job or started a new job.

# **4.4 Impacts of Treatment on Firm Structure**

In Table 5, we examine the impacts of the two labor market interventions on the characteristics of microenterprises. As always, we estimate Equation 5 in the full sample of women who completed the endline survey, but we also report the results of analogous specifications in a restricted sample of self-employed women. These latter specifications help to test the hypothesis that the interventions led to the creation of enterprises that differed in structure from those started by women in the control group.<sup>19</sup> As one would expect, we see that the franchise treatment increased the likelihood that a woman operates an enterprise that is directly linked to vocational training that she has received.<sup>20</sup><sup>_,_21</sup> The grant treatment leads to significant increases in the amount invested to start a business and the likelihood that a business was started with NGO funding; moreover, the businesses launched by women assigned to the grant treatment are significantly larger (in terms of the amount invested in them when they were launched) than the business operated by women assigned to either the control group or the franchise treatment. More interestingly, businesses launched by women in the grant treatment are also significantly more likely to employ others. The point estimate suggests that women assigned to the grant treatment are 5.8 percentage points more likely to run a business that employs anyone than women assigned to the control group (p-value 0.007), while businesses operated by women assigned to the grant treatment are

> 19In other words, the restricted sample helps us to distinguish between impacts that occur because the interventions increased the likelihood of self-employment, but without changing the character of selfemployment, and impacts that are not the direct result of the overall increase in the self-employment rate among women assigned to treatment.

20This variable is equal to one if a woman who has received salon skills training operates a salon or beauty business, if a woman who has received tailoring training works as a self-employed tailor, or if a woman who has received culinary training operates a prepared food business.

21In the Online Appendix, we show that the franchise and grant treatments had significant impacts on the industrial sector in which women worked (in either self-employment or paid work for others) at midline, but that these effects had largely disappeared by the time of the endline survey. At midline, both treatments were associated with a decrease in the likelihood of doing janitorial or trash collection work and an increase in the likelihood of working in the retail sector. The franchise treatment was also associated with an increase in the probability of working in the salon sector, while the grant treatment was associated with a decline in the probability of working in the salon sector. Only the impact of the franchise treatment on the likelihood of work in the salon sector persisted at endline.

20