on search targeting are almost identical (column 3). Candidates in the private arm expect to receive 5% more offers than control candidates, significantly less than the 11% increase in expected offers in the public arm (column 8). This suggests that workseekers view the new information as useful, but less useful than also being able to communicate their assessment results to firms.

The private certification intervention has substantially smaller effects than public certification on candidates’ outcomes in the labor market. Private certification effects on the probability of employment and hours worked are positive but small, not significantly different from zero, and significantly smaller than the public certification effects (columns 9-10). Private certification increases earnings and hourly wages but both effects are less than half the size of the public certification effects and significantly smaller (columns 11-12).

Results from both the public and private certification interventions are consistent with quantitatively important information frictions facing both workseekers and firms. Giving information to workseekers in both the public and private certification interventions increases the accuracy of their beliefs about their skills, allowing better search targeting, and leading to higher earnings. When workseekers can also credibly convey that information to firms, as in the public intervention, they are more likely to be employed and have even higher earnings and wages.

There are two ways that these results might reflect only firm-side or only workseeker-side information frictions, but we view both as unlikely. First, the private certification may deliver some information to firms and this information, rather than changes in workseeker beliefs or search targeting, may generate the positive private effect on earnings. This explanation is consistent with the fact that some candidates report using private certificates in job applications, although private effects on certificate use are on average one third as large as the public effects (Table 3, columns 4-7). We cannot conclusively rule out this interpretation but we view it as unlikely. The private reports do not have the candidate’s name and identity number, so they cannot be linked to a particular candidate. They have no branding, from Harambee or the World Bank. They do not explain that Harambee has used these assessments widely to place candidates with companies or that assessments predict workplace productivity and do not link to a website. None of the 15 hiring managers interviewed during piloting reported that they would view the private reports as credible.

Second, the public certification effects on employment and earnings may be larger than the private effects because workseekers incorrectly believe that firms face information frictions. Under this explanation, workseekers in the public certification group believe that firms are more likely to respond to job application submitted with certificates, hence they search more or search differently

> it more credible to workseekers) or because the information is more likely to be retained (e.g. workseekers are more likely to keep copies of the public report or discuss it in recent job interviews). To separate these hypotheses, we measure workseekers’ beliefs about their skills using a text message survey 2-3 days after treatment. The public and private effects in this survey are not different to each other, suggesting that workseekers’ beliefs update in the same way straight after receiving the reports and that the difference in the endline survey 3-4 months later is due to differential retention. See Appendix D and Table D.8 for details.

22