observe in the payroll account group might be the result of banking facilities not being available at times when employees need to access their account, rather than the result of learning. To test this potential alternative explanation, Appendix Table D.13 repeats the estimates in Table 4, panel A, columns (1) to (6), but excludes any transactions that occurred on weekends. Appendix Table D.14 repeats the exercise and additionally excludes transactions that occurred outside work hours. The results are similar in all three samples, which suggests that the increase in outside transactions occurs by choice rather than as a result of banking facilities and mobile agents at the workplace being unavailable when workers in the payroll account group need to access their account.

Our second learning outcome is an indicator for whether send-money transactions are made directly through a study participant’s own account, rather than a mobile money agent. Learning to make transactions through one’s account directly eliminates various consumer protection risks, including illicit fees and service charges which are widespread in our context and many similar settings. We examine treatment effects on direct versus indirect transactions using primarily data from the endline survey. This has the advantage of allowing us to observe both direct and indirect transactions (indirect transactions are typically routed through a mobile agent’s account on behalf of the customer, so that we do not observe them in administrative data).<sup>39</sup> In our analysis, we use a dummy variable equal to one if a participant made at least one send-money transaction directly from their account.

Figure 5 shows unconditional means for direct and indirect transactions at endline. Figure 5, panel (a) reports the share of workers who made at least one send-money transaction directly from their account (direct transactions) for the bank or mobile account and bank or mobile payroll treatment groups. Figure 5, panel (b) reports the share of workers who make at least one sendmoney transaction that is intermediated by a mobile money agent for the bank or mobile account and bank or mobile payroll treatment groups, respectively. The figure illustrates that, at endline, workers in the payroll account treatment condition are significantly more likely to make direct transactions. They are 42 percentage points more likely to make send-money transactions through their own account than workers in the account only group (p-value _<_ 0.001) and that, at the same time, they are 32 percentage points less likely to make transactions that are intermediated by a mobile money agent (p-value _<_ 0.001).

Table 4, panel B reports treatment effect estimates on direct versus intermediated transactions. For this exercise, we use survey data, which –unlike administrative data– also allows us to observe changes in _intermediated_ transactions that are made through a channel other than the respondent’s own account. The results confirm that workers in the payroll account treatment condition reduce the share of transactions intermediated by an agent and learn how to transact through their own account. The results in columns (5) and (6) confirm that, at endline, study participants in the payroll

> 39We report results using administrative data in the appendix for comparison and confirm that the results on direct transactions are consistent with estimates using self-reported data.

18