metadata: authors: 0: author: Mckenzie,David J.
1: author: Woodruff,Christopher Marshall
count: Bangladesh,Chile,Ghana,Kenya,Mexico,Nigeria,Sri Lanka
docna: 0: docna: Business practices in small firms in
            developing countries
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Private Sector Economics,Labor Markets,Skills Development and Labor Force Training,Educational Sciences,Private Sector Development Law,Employment and Unemployment,Marketing
teratopic: Industry,Private Sector Development
abstracts: cdata!: Management has a large effect on the
            productivity of large firms. But does management matter in
            micro and small firms, where the majority of the labor force
            in developing countries works? This study developed 26
            questions that measure business practices in marketing,
            stock-keeping, record-keeping, and financial planning. These
            questions have been administered in surveys in Bangladesh,
            Chile, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka. This
            paper shows that variation in business practices explains as
            much of the variation in outcomes — sales, profits, and
            labor productivity and total factor productivity — in
            microenterprises as in larger enterprises. Panel data from
            three countries indicate that better business practices
            predict higher survival rates and faster sales growth. The
            effect of business practices is robust to including many
            measures of the owner’s human capital. The analysis finds
            that owners with higher human capital, children of
            entrepreneurs, and firms with employees employ better
            business practices. Competition has less robust effects.
geo_reg_key: 517212,517191,1927320
repnme: repnme: Business practices in small firms in
            developing countries
display_title: Business practices in small firms in
            developing countries
listing_relative_url: /research/2015/08/24959833/business-practices-small-firms-developing-countries
topicv3: Private Sector Development m1326060 1921,Education m1327048 470,Self-Employment m1504000 2698,Labor Productivity m1504060 2756,Training Programs m1504140 2817
publishtoextweb_dt: 2015-08-27T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Industry,Private Sector Development
no_of_pages: 42
author_keys: 0: author_key: 437864
1: author_key: 813896
model_extractions: WPS7405 Policy Research Working Paper 7405 Business Practices in Small Firms in Developing Countries _David McKenzie Christopher Woodruff_ Development Research Group Finance and Private Sector Development Team August 2015
Policy Research Working Paper 7405

# **Abstract**

Management has a large effect on the productivity of large firms. But does management matter in micro and small firms, where the majority of the labor force in developing countries works? This study developed 26 questions that measure business practices in marketing, stock-keeping, record-keeping, and financial planning. These questions have been administered in surveys in Bangladesh, Chile, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka. This paper shows that variation in business practices explains as much of the variation in outcomes—sales, profits, and labor productivity and total factor productivity—in microenterprises as in larger enterprises. Panel data from three countries indicate that better business practices predict higher survival rates and faster sales growth. The effect of business practices is robust to including many measures of the owner’s human capital. The analysis finds that owners with higher human capital, children of entrepreneurs, and firms with employees employ better business practices. Competition has less robust effects.

This paper is a product of the Finance and Private Sector Development Team, Development Research Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at dmckenzie@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **Business Practices in Small Firms in Developing Countries**<sup>**#**</sup>

David McKenzie, _World Bank_ Christopher Woodruff, _University of Warwick_ _Keywords:_ business practices; small enterprises; productivity; management _JEL codes:_ O12; L26; M20; O17; M53.

> # We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Knowledge for Change Trust fund, as well as the funders and authors of the underlying surveys which we use. We thank Miriam Bruhn, Nicholas Bloom, Raffaella Sadun, John Van Reenan, and participants at the AEA annual meeting, Bocconi, Collegio Carlo Alberto, and Warwick for useful comments. Anna Luisa Paffhausen provided excellent research assistance.
# **1. Introduction**

Bloom and Van Reenen’s (2007) work measuring management practices in large firms around the world has been both path breaking and eye opening. They and their collaborators show that better managed firms perform better, and that the quality of management practices is strongly correlated with per capita income at the country level. But the vast majority of the non-agricultural labor force in most low- and middle-income countries is employed not in the large firms this blossoming literature studies, but in firms with fewer than 10 employees.<sup>1</sup> Bloom et al (2012) justify the focus on larger firms by noting that “...the formal management practices we consider will not be so important for smaller firms...where more formal management practices may not be necessary.” In this paper, we test the assertion that management practices are less important for smaller firms. We examine the relationship between management practices and firm outcomes using several samples of micro- and small enterprises in seven countries. In each of these samples, firm owners were asked 26 questions related to business practices using a common survey instrument first used in de Mel et al (2014). Management in the small-firm context is less focused on human relations than is the case in larger firms. Our diagnostic instrument reflects this, with questions covering the areas of marketing, record keeping, financial planning, and stock control. We refer to these as “business practices” rather than management practices to reflect the fact that HR management is less important in our context.

Our samples come from two South Asian, three African and two Latin American countries. The samples were all drawn for purposes other than testing our business practices instrument, and some were selected to reflect very specific sub-populations of interest for particular studies. They range from female-owned subsistence enterprises to a sample of highly-educated owners applying to a business plan competition. But while the samples were not formally designed to be representative of micro- and small-scale enterprises in each country, collectively they reflect the ranges of enterprises in low- and middle-income countries quite well.

Our measures of business practices are designed to be collected in closed-end surveys, and we code each of the 26 as either carried out or not. For most of the analysis, we focus on a simple

> 1 For example, Hsieh and Olken (2014, p.93) note that “About 90 percent of firms in Mexico employ less than 10 workers. In India and Indonesia, the fraction of firms with less than 10 workers is almost visually indistinguishable from 100 percent”, while McKenzie (2015) reports 99.6 percent of firms in Nigeria have fewer than 10 workers.

2
aggregation which measures what percentage of the 26 practices a business implements. We examine first the correlation between business practices and firm outcomes – sales, profits and productivity – in the cross section. The exercise is very much in the spirit of Bloom and Van Reenen (2007), and our results for the sample of microenterprises are remarkably similar to those in Bloom et al (2012): a one standard deviation improvement in business practices is associated with a 35 percent increase in labor productivity and a 22 percent increase in total factor productivity. The comparable relationships for much larger firms based on data from Bloom et al (2012) are 43 and 17 percent, respectively.

The cross-sectional analysis provides correlations without providing any evidence on the direct of causation. We then take two steps in the direction of uncovering causality. First, we provide some evidence using panel data available from three countries – Kenya, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. Using these data, we show that business practices measured at baseline are associated with higher rates of enterprise survival and higher rates of sales growth in the following year or years. Second, we assess evidence from the literature measuring the impact of microenterprise training programs. Overall, the evidence from entrepreneurship training programs disappointingly finds little evidence that training induces faster rates of growth (McKenzie and Woodruff 2012).<sup>2</sup> Focusing on five studies which measure business practices with a version of our instrument, we show that the effects on sales and profits found in these studies are always consistent with the predicted effects given the observed changes in business practices. Most of the studies find small, and statistically insignificant, effects on sales and profits because they find small effects of the training programs on business practices. Thus, we cannot conclude from the literature that business practices do not matter. The correct conclusion is that most of the existing training programs have effects which are too weak to generate statistically significant effects on outcomes.

In interpreting the data, we should keep in mind two ways in which the situation of small firms differs from that of larger firms. First, all of our data on both practices and outcomes are selfreported. We might be concerned that individuals who are prone to overstatement will overstate both practices and outcomes. We address this head on by conducting auditing exercises in two of the samples. We find that assessments of auditors hired by us, and blind to the survey responses

> 2 Calderon, Cunha and De Giorgi (2013) and Anderson-MacDonald et al. (2014) are recent exceptions, each showing more substantial growth following microenterprise training.

3
of the owners, are correlated very highly with the self-reports. We also note that the strong association between practices and enterprise survival supports the voracity of the measures. Second, the owner is almost always the top manager in our firms. Both practices and outcomes may be affected by characteristics of the owners that we cannot measure. We show that the correlation between practices and outcomes is almost unchanged by the inclusion of several measures of owner ability, most of which themselves are strongly associated with business practices.

# **2. Defining and Measuring Business Practices in Small Firms**

# **2.1 Defining and Scoring Business Practices**

We developed a set of 26 questions which measure key business practices used in the day-to-day running of small businesses. These questions were motivated by the content of the International Labour Organization (ILO’s) _Improve Your Business_ training curriculum, which covers marketing, buying and stock control, costing and record-keeping, and financial planning (Borgenvall et al., 1999). The questions cover practices which apply broadly across a range of different sectors and countries. As in Taylor (1911), they should be seen as “best practices” which are universally good so that all firms would benefit from adopting them. To give one example, we ask whether firms maintain written records which allow them to determine sales patterns for particular products or services. Since our focus is on a set of practices which can be applied in the vast majority of small firms, we exclude practices which might apply only to certain industry sectors, or firms of a certain size. In particular, we do not include human resource practices, since the modal small firm in most of the world has no paid workers.

Our goal was to design questions that could be included in large-scale surveys taken of owners of small firms. In practice these surveys in developing countries are typically administered by survey enumerators. For this reason, we rely on closed-ended questions. The surveys are usually administered on the premises of the business, but also can take place at the dwelling of the owner, or in a third location such as the offices of the survey firm. As such, we rely on questions that can be asked regardless of location. This precludes the use of measures involving physical inspection of the business premises or of the businesses’ books by the interviewer. We discuss reporting issues in Section 2.6.

4
In order to reduce the subjectivity associated with ordinal scales, we use binary measures of each practice – the firm is either doing the practice or it is not. For many practices this involves imposing a time frame on the frequency of the practice. For example, under marketing practices, we measure whether or not a firm has visited at least one of its competitor’s businesses to see what prices its competitors are charging within a period of the last three months. A firm which only checks on the prices of the competition less frequently would then be coded as not employing this practice. Appendix 1 details each of the 26 practices.

We then define our main measure, the _business practices score_ , as the proportion of these 26 business practices used by a firm. This method of aggregation has several attractive features. It naturally lies between 0 and 1, so coefficients can be interpreted easily as the effect of employing none of the practices to employing all of the practices. It also allows to compare practices even when not all 26 questions are asked in a particular country or answered by a given firm, since we can scale by the proportion of questions answered.<sup>3</sup> Nevertheless, for robustness purposes we also considered the first principal component of the individual practices, as well as the average of standardized z-scores for each practice. The correlations between all three of these aggregates range between 0.965 and 0.997. As such, our results are robust to these alternative methods of aggregation, as we show in Table A1.

# **2.2 Data Collection**

These questions were included in surveys of micro and small enterprises conducted in seven countries between 2008 and 2014. These samples vary in their representativeness and size, since they were in most cases conducted as part of impact evaluations of particular programs. The surveys conducted in Bangladesh, Kenya, Mexico, and Sri Lanka provide representative samples of firms of particular size cutoffs, while those in Ghana and Nigeria come from applicants to business plan competitions. The Chile survey was administered to a sample of applicants to a government microenterprise training program. Appendix 2 provides more detail on each sample. A consequence of these differences in sample frames in different countries is that we will not be able to compare the levels of business practices across countries, as Bloom and Van Reenen (2007) did for management practices. Instead, this sample of over 20,000 small firms provides rich data

> 3 Four of the questions on financial planning were not asked in Kenya and Nigeria.

5
that enables us to examine how business practices relate to outcomes across countries, and to explore what determines differences in business practices among firms within each country.

Four of the surveys (in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Sri Lanka) also provide panel data on the sampled firms. These allow us to examine survival rates over a one year horizon using data from 7,016 firms, and the stability of business practices over a one year horizon with data from 5,742 firms. The Sri Lankan data also provide a longer panel, enabling us to examine the relationship between business practices and subsequent survival over a 5.5 year period.

# **2.3 Summary Statistics**

Table 1 provides summary statistics for the full sample, and for each of the seven countries. In the combined sample, the median firm has zero employees and earns US$167 per month. 96.7 percent of the sample has nine or fewer workers. The gender distribution varies across countries, from the all-female samples in Kenya and Mexico, to a sample of 99 percent male owners in Bangladesh. The average business owner is 41 years of age and has 9.7 years of education; the average firm age is 8.7 years. Owners are youngest and most educated in the Nigerian sample, which comes from a youth business plan competition. Across all samples, most firms are informal, with only 34 percent in the combined sample reporting that they are registered for taxes. The businesses are a mix of trade, manufacturing and services, with this mix varying across the different countries.

# **2.4 Distribution of Business Practices**

Table 1 shows that on average firms in the samples employ 39 percent of the 26 business practices measured. The most frequently used practices are knowing which goods make the most profit per item (83%), not running out of stock frequently (70%), working out the cost of producing each main product sold (66%), and attempting to negotiate with suppliers for lower prices (58%). The least frequently used practices are preparing a balance sheet (5%), cash flow statement (7%), income and expenditure statement (16%), and doing advertising (17%). This is reflected in the four main subcomponents: the financial planning score is lower on average than the scores for other components. Table A4 reports means for the individual practices by country.

Figure 1 plots histograms of the distributions of business practice scores in each country. Recall that differences in the sample frames across countries make inter-country comparisons less 6
meaningful. For example, the Nigerian sample of highly educated young entrepreneurs who were selected through a nationwide business plan competition averages much higher scores than the other samples. However, we do see a large dispersion in business practices within each country. This echoes the large spread of management practices found by Bloom and Van Reenen (2007) across larger firms within countries. The dispersion is evident even within samples that screened the firms to be similar in terms of size and industry. For example, the Kenyan sample consists of female-owned firms largely operating retail trade businesses in small markets, with less than 3 employees and profits below 4,000 KSH per week (US$47). The standard deviation of the business practice score is still 0.19 relative to a mean of 0.52 even in this relatively homogenous sample. Thus there are large differences in the way even very small firms operate.

# **2.5 Stability of Business Practices over Time**

The data from Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka enable us to examine how stable these practices are over a one year period. Figure 2 plots the business practices score in a one-year follow-up survey against that in the baseline.<sup>4</sup> The mass lies close to a 45 degree line, but there are also firms that change their practices dramatically from one year to the next. The Pearson (Spearman) correlation is 0.591 (0.593). There is thus a strong persistent component of these scores. It is unclear how much of the variation over time reflects genuine change in practices versus measurement error. By way of comparison, Bloom and Van Reenen (2007) report that for a sample of 64 firms for which repeat interviews were done by different interviewers of different managers in a plant, but at the same point in time, the correlation was 0.73, while Bloom et al. (2012) report that their correlation in re-interviews was 0.51 when done for 222 re-interviews.

# **2.6 Reporting Issues and Audit Results**

Our measures of business practices come from survey self-reports. This raises three potential concerns. The first is that the survey responses may not be informative if everyone claims to be employing good practices. The second is that there is a systematic bias in reporting after a training intervention, with individuals who have gone through training claiming to employ more practices

> 4 We exclude the firms in Sri Lanka and Kenya who were assigned to receive business training treatments for this part of the analysis in order to examine the stability of practices in the absence of an intervention intended to change these practices: the correlation falls slightly to 0.56 if we include treated firms.

7
than they actually employ because they want to show they have done what the training instructed. The final concern is that a systematic bias arises because more able business owners are better at knowing what the correct answer to these practices should be, and also do better in business.

We employ several methods to address these concerns. The first consists of _audit visits_ . We selected a random sample of 135 firms in Nigeria and 200 firms in Sri Lanka that we had interviewed one to two months earlier. These businesses were visited by a business mentor – individuals experienced in business and/or business training – hired by us. The visits were framed to firm owners as a chance to receive individualized feedback on their business. The mentors were given a set of open-ended questions to ask (e.g. “What methods do you use to ensure your customers are satisfied with your products?”, “Tell me about any advertising you have done lately”, “Can you tell me how you keep track of inventory?”, “What are your targets for the business for the coming year?”, etc.), and typically spent 2-3 hours with the business owner. At the end of the interview, they provided the owner with suggestions for areas where she/he could improve practices and provided us with an independent assessment of whether or not the firm owner was using each of the 26 business practices.

When we compare the business practice score based on this audit with the survey responses, we find a Pearson (Spearman) correlation of 0.74 (0.73). This is higher than Bloom et al. (2012) report for their repeat interviews by different surveyors using double-blind surveying. Figure 3 plots the audited score against the survey score, along with a 45 degree line and line of best fit. Note that the fitted line has slope less of less than one, implying that it is more common for the audit visit to suggest a lower score than the survey than vice versa. This could reflect some over-reporting by firm owners, or could reflect that mentors are not able to always tell whether a practice is being implemented on the basis of the visit. Nevertheless, the strong positive correlation provides us with some confidence that the reported scores contain a strong signal of actual business practice.

In Sri Lanka, 90 of the 200 firms audited had been assigned to a business training course. The Sri Lankan audit sample can therefore also be used to assess the extent to which training biases the self-reported responses. In Appendix Table A1 we show the results of regressing the difference between the audited business practice score and the survey score on treatment assignment. The 8
treatment effect is small in magnitude (0.01) and not statistically significant, suggesting there is no systematic bias in reporting coming from some individuals having done business training. Finally, on the possibility that more able business owners report more business practices than they actually employ, and also do well in business, we show below that controlling for multiple measures of owner ability has little effect on our results. Taken together with the audit results, this provides some confidence that the associations we find between business practices and business performance are not an artifact of biased survey reporting.

# **3. Validating the Data**

We follow the approach of Bloom and Van Reenen (2007) in viewing the correlations of our business practice scores as a form of validation that the business practices are likely to be picking up a quantity of interest. As with their management practices, the purpose here is not to identify or claim a causal relationship between business practices and firm outcomes of interest, but rather to demonstrate that these measures do seem to at least have some predictive power for explaining differences in performance across firms.

# **3.1 Business Practices and Firm Productivity**

Consider a standard production decision of a small firm, in which the owner is choosing labor _L_ , materials _M_ , and capital _K_ inputs to maximize output _Y=f(A,L,M, K)_ , with output price _p_ , cost of labor _w_ , cost of raw materials _s_ , cost of capital _r_ , and productivity factor _A_ . With a given wealth level _W_ , the owner’s production decision is: Where λ reflects the tightness of borrowing constraints on both fixed and working capital. How then might business practices affect this production decision? Bloom et al. (2012) discuss several views of management that have analogs here. The first is to view management as another factor of production, which itself has a market price and is chosen by the firm owner like other inputs. In micro and small firms the owner is typically the manager (and often the only worker), so managers are not hired through the labor market. But owners may be able to purchase better business practices by investing in business training. A second view is that management is a technology, 9
with better management allowing firms to produce more out of the same inputs. In our context this would mean have business practices affect the _A_ term in this optimization decision. For example, better stock-keeping, record-keeping and planning ahead may result in less spoilage and wastage, and less downtime that comes from not having the right parts or goods.

However, we believe that the types of business practices we measure also are likely to matter in ways other than productivity. In particular, marketing practices are likely to affect the demand faced by firms, which is reflected in the price _p_ it receives. Better buying practices such as seeking an alternative supplier can result in low raw materials prices _s_ , while better record-keeping and financial planning can potentially affect the willingness of banks to lend (�), and cost of finance _r_ . As a result, both prices and inputs are likely to be endogenous to business practices _B_ . But in general the different channels all suggest we should expect firms with better business practices to have higher revenues and to be more profitable, so we can examine whether these associations hold.

We start by simply examining whether firms with better business practices have higher revenues. To do this we run local linear regressions of log sales on our business practices index. Next, we examine cross-sectional associations with labor productivity by estimating for firm _i_ in industry _j_ in country _c_ : where _y_ is log sales or log profits, _B_ is our business practices index score, and _l_ is labor. This specification controls for country and industry dummies. Industry sector is defined differently across the datasets, so we allow for the industry to vary by country. Typically industry is at the 2 or 3 digit SIC level, and in total we have 294 industry*country dummies. For labor, we control for log of the owner’s labor hours, and log of the number of workers. To deal with zero hours or zero workers, we include separate dummy variables for having zero hours and for having zero workers, as well as for having missing values of these variables.<sup>5</sup> A positive value of � then shows that better business practices are associated with higher labor productivity in the cross-section.

> 5 About 2.4 percent of respondents report sales of zero, and 3.9 percent report negative or zero profits. We exclude these from the regressions reported in the body of the paper. We think this is likely the proper treatment because, for

10
We then add controls for the log of the value of inventories and log capital stock, again including separate dummies for zero and missing values, in order to capture total factor productivity. Next, we add a set of controls for owner and firm characteristics that might be correlated with both firm productivity and the business practices used: the gender, age, and schooling of the owner, their ability as measured by raven and digitspan recall tests, and the age of the firm. Finally, we allow the coefficients on all of these control variables to differ by country.

# **3.2 Econometric Results for the Association of Business Practices with Productivity**

Table 2 reports the results of estimating equation (2) on the combined sample. Column 1 shows a strong positive and significant association between better business practices and higher labor productivity. A one standard deviation (0.25) increase in the business practices score is associated with 0.30 log points (35 percent) higher labor productivity. Controlling for inventories and raw materials reduces this association from a one s.d. change in business practice scores to 0.24 log points (27 percent). Adding the set of owner and firm controls in column 3 reduces the coefficient on business practices only slightly, despite the controls themselves being highly significant. From column 3 we find that a one standard deviation increase in business practices scores is associated with a 23 percent increase in productivity. Allowing for additional flexibility in the production function in column 4 by allowing all control variables to have country-specific coefficients does not change this very much, with a one standard deviation increase in business practices still associated with a 22 percent increase in productivity.

Columns 5 through 8 show the corresponding regressions with log profits as the outcome; business practices are again statistically significant in all specifications. From column 8 we find a one standard deviation increase in business practices is associated with an 18 percentage point increase in profits, conditional on labor, raw materials, capital, and owner and firm characteristics.

Because the survey respondent is also typically the manager, there might be a concern that the reported measures of business practices and outcomes are both influenced by characteristics of the owners which we are unable to control for. High ability owners, for example, may report better business practices either because they are more likely to use better practices or because they are example, there are many observations with zero sales but positive profits, However, we find almost identical results when we define the left hand side variable as log(sales+1) and log(profits+1).

11
more likely to know what the “correct” answer to the questions is. Even if higher ability owners employ better practices, the relationship between practices and sales or profits may be biased upward by the exclusion of variables positively correlated with both practices and outcomes. In that regard, the comparison of column 2 with column 3, or column 6 with column 7 is reassuring. These results indicate that the inclusion of several controls for the ability of the owner does not reduce very much the relationship between measured business practices on the one hand and sales or profits on the other, suggesting that the relationship is not driven by unmeasured owner ability (Altonji et al 2005).

The estimations reported on Table 2 impose a linear functional form between business practices and firm performance. One might alternatively hypothesize that business practices either have strongly decreasing returns (what matters is having a few in place), or strongly increasing returns (they do not matter unless you are doing almost all of them). We therefore relax the linearity assumption in two ways. First, Figure 4 shows local linear regressions of log sales against our business practices score for the combined sample, and for each country separately. Point-wise 95 percent confidence intervals are also shown. In some of the individual country cases the confidence intervals are wide at one or the other tail, reflecting few observations in this range. This is particularly the case for the smaller Chilean sample. In all cases we see strong positive, and reasonably linear, relationships. Firms with better business practices have higher sales on average. Second, in Appendix Figure A1 we re-estimate column 8 of Table 2, allowing for non-linearity in the association with business practices by including nine dummy variables for different business practice ranges instead of the linear term. The relationship is fairly linear, showing if anything slightly increasing returns to business practices. We therefore proceed with a linear specification for the remainder of the paper for ease of interpretation.

In Appendix Table A2 we examine the robustness of our results to alternative methods of aggregating the business practices. We do this for the subsample of observations with no missing business practice data, since principal components drops observations in which one or more business practices are missing.<sup>6</sup> We see from the foot of Table A2 that the estimated change in log sales from a one standard deviation change in the business practice measure is robust to how

> 6 Note that this drops the entire samples from Mexico, Nigeria, and Kenya where one or more of the business practice questions were not asked.

12
business practices are aggregated, and we get a positive and strongly significant association in all cases. Appendix Table A3 examines the association between business practices and productivity country by country. Panel A shows labor productivity, and Panel B total factor productivity. We see positive and significant associations with labor productivity in all countries, and positive associations with total factor productivity in all countries, which are statistically significant in six out of seven countries (the exception being Ghana, which has a relatively small sample size). Therefore our results are not being driven by any one country, or by the method of aggregation.

Our specifications in Table 2 are similar to those in the first few columns of Table 3 of Bloom et al. (2012). It is therefore of interest to compare the magnitude of association of outcomes with business practices in our sample to the associations of outcomes with management practices in their sample. In their equivalent of column 1, a one standard deviation increase in their management practices score is associated with a 42.6 percent increase in labor productivity, while in their equivalent of column 4, a one standard deviation increase in management is associated with a 17.1 percent increase in total factor productivity. These are similar in magnitude to our estimated effect sizes of 35 percent and 22 percent, respectively.<sup>7</sup>

# **3.3 Association of Business Practices with Business Subcomponents**

Table 3 separates our overall business practice measure into the four subcomponent indices: marketing, buying and stock control, record-keeping, and financial planning. Column 1 shows that each component has a positive and significant association with labor productivity. Columns 2 and 3 shows this is also true for total factor productivity. Column 6 shows that it is the record-keeping and marketing practices that have the strongest associations with profits, conditional on input use and owner and firm characteristics. Table A4 presents the coefficients from estimating (2) separately for each practice, and finds that 25 out of the 26 practices have a statistically significant positive correlation with labor productivity (the exception being whether they run out of stock frequently).

# **3.4 Association of Business Practices with Firm Survival and Firm Growth**

> 7 Note that the standardized effect sizes are much smaller in Bloom and Van Reenan (2007), which has a much smaller spread of management practices over which to draw inferences.

13
Table 4 uses our panel data to examine the extent to which baseline business practices help predict subsequent firm survival and firm growth.<sup>8</sup> Columns 1 through 4 use data from Kenya, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka and look at survival over one year. Column 5 uses only the Sri Lanka data to examine a longer-term horizon of 5.5 years. We see from column 1 that baseline business practices do positively and significantly predict one-year survival. A one standard deviation improvement in business practices is associated with a 1.3 percentage point higher likelihood of survival, in a context where on average only 8.8 percent of firms exit in one year. Baseline practices continue to significantly predict survival even after conditioning on initial employment levels (column 2), and on owner and firm characteristics (column 3). However, they lose their significance once we condition on baseline sales and profitability (column 4), suggesting that one of the main channels in helping firms survive is through making them more profitable. Column 5 shows that our business practice measure also predicts survival over longer periods – a one standard deviation increase in baseline practices is associated with 2.2 percentage point higher survival rates over a 5.5 year horizon.

Columns 6 through 8 show that there is a strong positive association between initial business practices and subsequent sales growth (conditional on survival).<sup>9</sup> Sales growth here is measured as the change in log sales. This positive association holds over the one year horizon (columns 6 and 7), and in our Sri Lankan sample over the 5.5 year horizon (column 8). A one standard deviation increase in business practices is associated with 7 percent higher growth over one year (column 7), and with 15 percent higher growth over 5.5 years (column 8).

# **3.5 Discussion of Business Training Experimental Literature**

The above analysis shows that there exists a strong positive association between our measure of business practices and business performance and growth. In order to show that this relationship is causal, we would ideally experimentally change business practices and measure their impact on firm growth. A growing experimental literature, summarized in McKenzie and Woodruff (2014), has attempted to do this. However, much of this literature has struggled to find significant impacts

> 8 Note in our survival probits we control for industry classification at the level of manufacturing, trade, and services, in order that the probit does not drop observations from industries with small numbers of firms in our sample and in which all the firms survive or all fail.

> 9 Since sales growth can be noisy, for robustness we also considered sales growth truncated at the 5th and 95th percentile, and using this truncated growth measure also results in a positive and statistically significant association.

14
of business training on firm performance. This raises the question of whether the strong associations we see in our data are inconsistent with experimental results, and therefore suggest that we are not capturing a causal phenomenon.

To examine this, we use the fact that three of our datasets were collected as part of business training experiments. The first three rows of Table 5 show the effects on business practices of the International Labor Organization (ILO) Start-and-Improve-Your-Business and Get Ahead training programs in two of our Sri Lankan sub-samples and our Kenyan sample. The first column shows the measured effect of training on business practices. In all three experiments, the treatment effect on our business practices measure is between 0.04 and 0.06, implying the owners undertake an additional 1 to 1.5 practices after training. The next two columns present the 95 percent confidence intervals for the treatment effects on log sales and log profits one year after this training. Many of these contain zero, which is consistent with the general struggle in the literature to find significant impacts of training on sales and profits. In the final two columns we use the coefficients from columns 4 and 8 of Table 2 to predict changes in profits and sales, given the change in business practices that the training causes. Given the small change in business practices, the earlier regressions suggest we should see only a 3-4 percent increase in sales and profits in each study. These estimates lie well within the confidence intervals of the estimated treatment effects.

Although most other business training evaluations have not measured business practices in as comprehensive a way as our measures, the evidence summarized in McKenzie and Woodruff (2014) shows that other existing training programs have generally also only increased the use of good business practices of around 6 or 7 percentage points, or 0.1 to 0.2 standard deviations. This contrasts with the experimental evidence on management practices in large firms provided in Bloom et al. (2013), in which intensive consulting resulted in a 37.8 percentage point increase in management practice use.

The bottom two rows of Table 5 summarize two recent studies that have used more intensive training programs and also found larger impacts on business practices, using measurement tools based on our survey instrument. The control group data from Martínez et al. (2013) provides the Chile data used in our paper. In their experiment, they find an approximate 0.18 increase in the business practice score, which is about four times as large as in the ILO training experiments. This results in a statistically significant increase in business income. Our associations from Table 2 15
would again yield an estimated treatment effect within their confidence interval.<sup>10</sup> AndersonMacDonald et al. (2014) use a 10 week course in South Africa, and obtain average increases in business practices of 26 percentage points. Based on Table 2 we would predict that this would lead to 17-21 percent increases in profits and sales. These predictions are lower than their point estimates, but lie within the confidence intervals for their estimated effects.

Taken together, we therefore view the experimental evidence on business training as being consistent with the strong associations we find between business practices and firm performance. The reason most business training studies struggle to find effects is that relatively short training courses do not lead to much of a change in business practices, leaving the studies with limited power for measuring impacts on sales and profits.

# **4. What explains the variation in business practices across firms?**

We have found that there is large variation within countries in terms of the business practices used by small firms, and that these differences are strongly correlated with firm performance and survival. This raises the question of what causes business practices to vary so much across firms. We consider several key factors, examining the extent to which factors identified as explaining differences in management practices among larger firms also play a role in determining business practices among small firms.

# **4.1 Human Capital**

In small firms the business practices used are to a large extent implemented by the firm owner. Without intermediate levels of management and workers, we expect the human capital of the owner to play a key role in determining which business practices are used. We have seen that our business practice measures retain significance even after controlling for multiple measures of human capital, suggesting that it is not that business practices are simply capturing owner ability. But it does seem likely that more educated and more able owners will find it easier to learn and adopt good business practices.

> 10 Note that their intervention combined the training with a grant, and they are unable to separate the effect of training from that of the grant. This may explain why our estimated effect based on Table 2 is near the bottom of a confidence interval for their effect size.

16
Figure 5 shows local linear regressions of business practices on years of schooling for the combined sample, and country by country. We see a strong positive association. The association is weakest in Nigeria, where most of the sample has post-secondary education. Column 1 of Table 6 examines this association in more detail, also controlling for owner gender, age, country, and business sector, and for two other measures of human capital: digitspan recall and Raven test score. These latter two measures are both measures of analytical and cognitive ability, and were only collected in some countries (see Table 1). We see that business practices tend to be better in maleowned firms, and do not vary with the age of the owner. Conditional on this, each year of education is associated with a 1.2 percentage point increase in business practices: so a one standard deviation increase in education is associated with a 0.20 s.d. increase in business practices. Digitspan recall and Raven test both have positive and significant associations as well, but the magnitudes are smaller: a 1 s.d. increase in either measure is associated with a 0.03-0.08 increase in business practice scores, conditional on the other variables in this regression. Formal education therefore appears to have a stronger association than innate ability in explaining the practices used.

# **4.2 Family History of Entrepreneurship**

Evidence from higher-income countries indicates that children of self-employed parents are more likely to become self-employed themselves. Dunn and Holtz-Eakin (2000) find that the effect parents’ self-employment on occupational choice remains large even after controlling for wealth levels, suggesting that the transition of human capital from parent to child is the most important channel for the intergenerational effect. Motivated by this, in column 2 of Table 2 we examine whether owners whose parents were business owners have different business practices. We see that both having a father who owned a business and having a mother who owned a business are positively associated with business practices. This provides support for the idea that parents who are business owners transmit human capital relevant to running a business to their children.

# **4.3 Product Market Competition**

Bloom and Van Reenen (2007) emphasize the role of product market competition in driving out poorly managed firms or getting them to improve. We have three different measures of competition in our surveys. The first is the number of competitors the firm faces in their local area (typically in their marketplace or census tract). Many firms face a lot of competition, with the median facing 17
8 competitors, and the mean 30. We split this variable into categories in order to see how different degrees of competition associate with business practices, and to avoid the results being driven by outliers (one firm reports 7,000 competitors!). Column 3 shows the results. There is no significant association between any level of competition and business practices.

Our second measure of competition is whether the most important competitor is located within 1 kilometer of the business, reflecting close competition. This question was asked only in the Bangladesh, Ghana and Sri Lanka samples. In those samples, 81 percent of firms say yes to this. Our third measure is whether the firm owner says that customers could replace them in a less than 1 day if they shut down. 44 percent of the respondents in Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria, where the question was asked, report this is the case. Columns 4 and 5 of Table 6 show negative correlations with both measures of competition, with the measure of being able to be replaced within one day being significant at the 1 percent level.

While the results using the latter two measures of competition appear to be much more strongly negative than the results when using the number of competitors, the difference is driven as much by the difference in samples as the differences in the way competition is defined. When we run the regression from column 3 on either of the samples where the other competition measures are defined, all four coefficients are negative, those for between 5 and 20 competitors significantly so. Conversely, when we run the column 3 regression on the sample where the other measures of competition are not defined, we obtain four positive coefficients, with those for between 1 and 9 competitors both just missing the .10 significance level. Taken together, these results suggest that the effect of competition varies across the samples, but is at least as likely to be associated with worse business practices among small firms. This is in strong contrast to the results for larger firms. One reason that competition effects may differ for small firms is that competition itself is endogenous to business practices.<sup>11</sup> Better managed small firms will market differently, differentiate their products, and choose locations such that they may not have to compete with as many other firms. In contrast, firms with poor business practices are likely to be producing goods

> 11 It is also possible that firm owners with worse business practices have inaccurate information about how many competitors they actually face. The response of “Don’t know” is dummied out along with missing observations for this variable in our regressions.

18
that are the same as those produced by many other firms, and thus face large amounts of competition.

# **4.4 Firm Size**

Finally we examine whether larger firms have better business practices. The causation here may go both ways: firms with better practices will sell more and be able to grow larger – consistent with the results for sales growth we show on Table 4 – in the end hiring more employees. But being larger may also allow owners to hire specialists to perform some of the functions we measure (such as record-keeping) and give the owner more time for strategic planning and marketing rather than day-to-day operations. Column 6 of Table 6 shows that larger firms do have better business practices. A firm with 1 to 4 paid workers has a 0.101 higher business practices score than a firm with no workers, and the coefficients increase with each category of firm size, so that a firm with 21 or more workers has a 0.235 (almost one s.d.) higher business practice score than a firm with no workers.

The last column of Table 6 considers all these factors together. We continue to see positive associations between better business practices and human capital, having parents who owned a business, and firm size.

# **5. Conclusions**

Micro and small enterprises are the predominant form of economic activity in low- and middleincome countries. There is broad recognition that the microenterprise sector is highly heterogeneous, with some owners drawn by opportunities to create a business and others drawn by the necessity to scrape out a living. Aspirations and education have been viewed as the main underlying sources of heterogeneity. We show that the enterprises are also differentiated by the quality of the business practices they employ, and that business practices have effects on enterprise outcomes which are independent of the effects of basic human capital.

Our index of business practices is designed to be easily implemented in closed-end field surveys and is customized to microenterprises. Most of our data are self-reported, but we show that the reports of owners are highly correlated with measures from independent auditors visiting the businesses and spending several hours asking open-ended questions about practices. Using data 19
from seven countries, we show that the index of business practices is highly correlated with enterprise heterogeneity in the cross-section. Owners implementing better business practices have higher sales, profits, labor productivity and total factor productivity. Moreover, better business practices are associated with higher rates of firm survival, and substantially higher rates of sales growth. The effect of business practices on outcomes is not only statistically significant but economically meaningful. A one standard deviation improvement in business practices is associated with an increase of 35 percent in labor productivity and 22 percent in total factor productivity – relationships similar to those found for large firms in Bloom et al (2012).

The correlation between business practices and business outcomes raises the obvious question of whether the correlations we find in the data line up with causation. That is, can practices be improved with training or consulting and, if so, do the improved practices lead to improved firm outcomes? A growing literature tests the effectiveness of training programs which aim to improve management of small enterprises. The literature generally shows insignificant effects of training on firm outcomes. But our data show that the failure to find significant effects is explained by the fact that the training programs have only a very modest effect on improvement of business practices. The changes in sales and profits predicted by cross-sectional data for the given changes in business practices are all well within the confidence limits for increases in sales and profits found in the experimental literature. Our findings thus point to the need for more intensive training programs that have larger effects on business practices.

# **References**

Altonji, Joseph, Todd Elder and Christopher Taber (2005) “Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools,” _Journal of Political Economy_ , 113(1): 151-184.

Anderson MacDonald, Stephen, Rajesh Chandy and Bilal Zia (2014) “The impact of marketing (versus finance) skills on firm performance: evidence from a randomized controlled trial in South Africa”, Mimeo. London Business School.

Bloom, Nicolas and John Van Reenen (2007) “Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries”, _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ 112(4): 1351-1408 20
Bloom, Nicolas, Raffaella Sadun and John Van Reenen (2012) “Management as a Technology”, Mimeo. Stanford.

Bloom, Nicolas, Benn Eifert, Aprajit Mahajan, David McKenzie and John Roberts (2013) “Does Management Matter? Evidence from India”, _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ , 128(1): 1-51 Borgenvall, Mats, Håken Jarskog, Barbara Murray and Cecilia Karlstedt (1999) _Improve Your Business: Basics_ . International Labour Office, Geneva.

Calderon, Gabriela, Jesse M. Cunha, Giacomo De Giorgi , 2013, “Buisness Literacy and Development: Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial in Rural Mexico,” working paper Barcelona GSE.

Calderon, Gabriela, Leonardo Iacovone and Laura Juarez (2015) “Opportunity Vs. Necessity: Understanding the Heterogeneity of Female Micro-entrepreneurs”, Mimeo. World Bank.

De Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie and Christopher Woodruff (2009) “Innovative Firms or Innovative Owners? Determinants of Innovation in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises", _World Bank Policy Research Working Paper_ no. 4934.

De Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie, and Christopher Woodruff (2010) “Wage Subsidies for Microenterprises”, _American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings_ , 100(2): 614-18.

De Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie and Christopher Woodruff (2013) “What Generates Growth in Microenterprises? Experimental Evidence on Capital, Labor and Training”, Mimeo. World Bank.

De Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie and Christopher Woodruff (2014) “Business Training and Female Enterprise Start-up, Growth, and Dynamics: Experimental evidence from Sri Lanka”, _Journal of Development Economics_ , 106: 199-210.

Diwan, Faizan, Grace Makana, David McKenzie, and Silvia Paruzzolo (2014) “Invitation Choice Structure Has No Impact on Attendance in a Female Business Training Program in Kenya” _PLOS ONE_ , 9(10): e109873 Dunn, Thomas and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, 2000, “Financial Capital, Human Capital, and the Transition to Self-Employment: Evidence from Intergenerational Links,” _Journal of Labor Economics_ , Vol 18(2), pp. 287-305.

Fafchamps, Marcel and Christopher Woodruff (2014) “Identifying Gazelles: Expert panels vs. surveys as a Means to Identify Firms with Rapid Growth Potential”, Mimeo. Warwick.

Hsieh, Chang-Tai and Benjamin Olken (2014) “The Missing “Missing Middle””, _Journal of Economic Perspectives_ 28(3): 89-108.

21
Martínez, Claudia, Esteban Puentes and Jaime Ruiz-Tagle (2013) “Micro-Entrepreneurship Training and Asset Transfers: Short Term Impacts on the Poor”, <u>http://works.bepress.com/claudia_martinez_a/5</u> McKenzie, David (2010) “Dimensions of informality in Bangladesh”, Mimeo. World Bank.

McKenzie, David (2015) “Identifying and Spurring High-Growth Entrepreneurship: Experimental Evidence from a Business Plan Competition”, Mimeo. World Bank.

McKenzie, David and Christopher Woodruff (2014) “What are we learning from business training evaluations around the developing world?”, _World Bank Research Observer_ , 29(1): 48-82.

Taylor, Frederick (1911), _Principles of Scientific Management_ , New York and London: Harper and Brothers.

# **Appendix 1: Business Practices Measured**

The _total score_ – the composite business practice score -- ranges between 0 and 1. The total is the proportion of the following 26 business practices used by the firm: _Marketing Practices:_ coded as 1 for each of the following that the business has done in the last 3 months:

- M1: Visited at least one of its competitor’s businesses to see what prices its competitors are charging

- M2: Visited at least one of its competitor’s businesses to see what products its competitors have available for sale

- M3: Asked existing customers whether there are any other products the customers would like the business to sell or produce

- M4: Talked with at least one former customer to find out why former customers have stopped buying  from this business

- M5: Asked a supplier about which products are selling well in this business’ industry

- M6: Attracted customers with a special offer

- M7: Advertised in any form (last 6 months)

Note: M1 and M2 are coded as zero if the firm says it has no competitors. M4 is coded as zero if the firm says it has no former customers.

_Buying and Stock Control Practices:_ coded as 1 for each of the following:

- B1: Attempted to negotiate with a supplier for a lower price on raw material

- B2: Compared the prices or quality offered by alternate suppliers or sources of raw materials to the business’ current suppliers or sources of raw material

- B3: The business does not run out of stock monthly or more (coded as one if the business has no stock)

22
_Costing and Record-Keeping Practices_ : coded as 1 for each of the following that the business does:

- R1: Keeps written business records

- R2: Records every purchase and sale made by the business

- R3: Able to use records to see how much cash the business has on hand at any point in time

- R4: Uses records regularly to know whether sales of a particular product are increasing or decreasing from one month to another

- R5: Works out the cost to the business of each main product it sells

- R6: Knows  which goods you make the most profit per item selling

- R7: Has a written budget, which states how much is owed each month for rent, electricity, equipment maintenance, transport, advertising, and other indirect costs to business

- R8: Has records documenting that there exists enough money each month after paying business expenses to repay a loan in the hypothetical  situation that this business wants a bank loan

_Financial Planning Practices_ : coded as 1 for each of the following:

- F1: Review the financial performance of their business and analyze where there are areas for improvement at least monthly

- F2: Has a target set for sales over the next year

- F3: Compares their sales achieved to their target at least monthly

- F4: Has a budget of the likely costs their business will have to face over the next year

- F5: Has an annual profit and loss statement

- F6: Has an annual statement of cash flow

- F7: Has an annual balance sheet

- F8: Has an annual income/expenditure sheet

Note that F5 through F8 were not asked in the Kenya and Nigeria datasets, so the business practices score for these two countries is the proportion of the other 22 practices implemented.

# **Appendix 2: Additional Details on Surveys**

_Bangladesh:_ The survey was conducted between March and May 2010 as part of a World Bank project intended to investigate the differences between formal and informal firms in Bangladesh (McKenzie, 2010). The data consists of 1725 enterprises, selected from a sample frame formed by a census of 55,817 firms in the randomly selected areas in urban parts of the 19 old districts. The sample was stratified by firm size (in terms of full-time employment) and broad industry (manufacturing, trade or services. Oversampling of firms with 10-99 full-time workers was done to ensure sufficient sample sizes of these firms. Only one round of this survey was taken.

## _Chile_

23
The data consist of the follow-up survey from individuals owning enterprises in the control group of Martínez et al. (2013). The original sample consists of beneficiaries of Chile’s anti-poverty program (Chile Solidario) who applied to a government microenterpreneurship support program in 2010, and who were located in the metropolitan area of Santiago. 566 individuals were assigned to the control group. The followup survey, which measured business practices, took place between October and November 2011. We use the sample of 158 individuals in the control group who were found to be running enterprises in this followup survey. Only one round of business practice data are available, and we use time-invariant characteristics of the business owners from the baseline survey coupled with the outcome and business practice data from the follow-up survey.

# _Ghana_

The sample consists of 335 applicants to a business plan competition in Accra and Kumasi, described in Fafchamps and Woodruff (2014). Baseline data were collected in 2010, and then two rounds of follow-up surveys were collected in July-August 2011, and August-September 2012, approximately one and two years after the baseline. 257 individuals were surveyed in the first follow-up, and 279 in the second follow-up. The survey did not collect detailed survival data, and so we only use the time dimension of this data for examining the persistence of business practices over time.

# _Kenya_

The sample comes from an ongoing evaluation of a business training program for women in four counties of Kenya: Kakamega and Kisii in the Western region, and Embu and Kitui in the Eastern region. In each county a census was taken of market centers, and then a screening was done to select a sample in which the business did not have more than 3 employees; the business had profits in the past week between 0 and 4000 Kenyan Shillings (KSH) (1 US Dollar averaged approximately 85 KSH over the survey period); sales in the past week less than or equal to 50,000 KSH; and the individual had at least one year of schooling (Diwan et al, 2014). The survey is therefore representative of microenterprises of this size run by women in these four counties. The baseline survey took place between June and November 2013, and consisted of 3,537 individuals. The survey is missing responses on business practices F5-F8 (financial statements) in the baseline, because the question only allowed for one response, rather than a yes/no for each type of financial statement (70.2% report not having any accounting statement prepared).A follow-up survey was conducted one year later, with survival data collected for 3,446 individuals and follow-up business practices data for 2,860 individuals.

# _Mexico_

This survey is the baseline of a randomized-controlled trial to evaluate the impact of "Mujeres Moviendo a Mexico", a large-scale business training program for female micro-entrepreneurs funded by INADEM ("Instituto Nacional del Emprendedor Mexicano") and implemented by the NGO Crea Comunidades de Emprendedores Sociales. The survey was conducted in 2014 and consists of a representative sample of female-run firms with 5 or fewer employees and less than 4 million Mexican pesos in annual turnover operating in eight urban areas in Mexico: Aguascalientes, Dolores Hidalgo, Irapuato, León, Mexico City, Querétaro, San Juan del Río and Toluca. The data are described further in Calderon et al. (2015). The data consists of 10,275 individuals. The business practice questions asked did not include R2 (keeping a record of every purchase and sale.

24
# _Nigeria_

The sample consists of applicants to a nationwide business plan competition, described in McKenzie (2014). The first round data consist of 1725 individuals surveyed between November 2012 and April 2013 who were operating businesses at that time. The sample consists of applicants who had been selected for a business plan training workshop, or had scores close to the threshold for being selected. A second followup survey was conducted between October 2013 and February 2014, allowing measurement of survival over a 1 year horizon, and of the stability of business practices. The business practice questions asked did not include F5-F8 (financial statements).

# _Sri Lanka_

The business practice questions were asked in three separate surveys undertaken in Sri Lanka, and we use the data from all three.

The first sample comes from the Sri Lankan Longitudinal Survey of Enterprises (SLLSE), a long-term panel survey of microenterprises designed by the authors in collaboration with Suresh de Mel (de Mel et al, 2010, 2013). The baseline survey was intended to be a representative survey of male microenterprises with 2 or fewer employees in the Colombo, Kandy, and Galle-Matara areas of Sri Lanka, and was conducted between April and October 2008. This gives 1562 individuals with business practice scores. These enterprises were then subsequently re-interviewed in 10 additional follow-up rounds, in April and October of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and in April of 2013 and 2014. This enables us to examine survival over periods of as long as 5.5 years.

The second sample consists of a representative sample of current female business owners operating in greater Colombo and greater Kandy areas, who had monthly profits of 5,000 Rs or less (US$43). These 628 women were first interviewed in January 2009, and form the current enterprise sample for a business training intervention described in de Mel et al. (2014). Four rounds of follow-up surveys were conducted in September 2009, January 2010, September 2010, and June 2011. We use the January 2010 follow-up to measure the one-year survival rates and stability of business practices over a one-year horizon.

The third sample consist of small and medium enterprises that were a booster sample to the baseline of the SLLSE, which were surveyed in order to generate a larger sample of firms of this size (de Mel et al, 2010). The baseline sample consisted of 610 of these firms, but did not ask business practice questions. We use the 471 firms that were reinterviewed and still surviving in April 2009.

25
<!-- Start of picture text --> Figure 1: Variation in Business Practices Within Countries<br>Bangladesh Chile Ghana<br>Kenya Mexico Nigeria<br>0 .5 1 0 .5 1<br>Sri Lanka<br>0 .5 1<br>Proportion of Practices Used<br>4<br>3<br>2<br>1<br>0<br>4<br>3<br>2<br>1<br>Density<br>0<br>4<br>3<br>2<br>1<br>0<br><!-- End of picture text --> 26
|0<br>.2<br>.4<br>.6<br>.8<br>1<br>Business Practices Score One Year Later<br>0<br>.2<br>.4<br>.6<br>.8<br>1<br>Business Practices Score at Baseline<br>Figure 2: Stability of Business Practices Over 1 Year|
|---|

27
<!-- Start of picture text --> Figure 3: Audited Scores vs Survey Scores<br>0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1<br>Business Practices Score (Survey)<br>Linear Fit<br>45 degree line<br>1<br>.8<br>.6<br>.4<br>.2<br>Business Practices Score (Audit)<br>0<br><!-- End of picture text --> 28
# Figure 4: Local linear regressions of log sales on business practices

<!-- Start of picture text --> Combined Sample Bangladesh Chile Ghana<br>0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1<br>Proportion of Business Practices Used Proportion of Business Practices Used Proportion of Business Practices Used Proportion of Business Practices Used<br>Kenya Mexico Nigeria Sri Lanka<br>0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1<br>Proportion of Business Practices Used Proportion of Business Practices Used Proportion of Business Practices Used Proportion of Business Practices Used<br>12 7 12<br>7.5<br>7 10 6 10<br>6.5 5 8<br>8<br>6 4 6<br>Log of Monthly Sales Log of Monthly Sales Log of Monthly Sales Log of Monthly Sales<br>6<br>3 4<br>5.5<br>6 7.5 8 12<br>6 10<br>5 7<br>4 8<br>6.5<br>4<br>2 6<br>Log of Monthly Sales Log of Monthly Sales 6 Log of Monthly Sales Log of Monthly Sales<br>4<br>3 0<br><!-- End of picture text --> 29
# Figure 5: Local linear regressions of Business Practices on Education

<!-- Start of picture text --> Overall Sample Bangladesh Chile Ghana<br>0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20<br>Years of education of owner Years of education of owner Years of education of owner Years of education of owner<br>Kenya Mexico Nigeria Sri Lanka<br>0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20<br>Years of education of owner Years of education of owner Years of education of owner Years of education of owner<br>1 1 1 1<br>.8 .8 .8 .8<br>.6 .6 .6 .6<br>.4 .4 .4 .4<br>.2 .2 .2 .2<br>Business Practices Score Business Practices Score Business Practices Score Business Practices Score<br>0 0 0 0<br>1 1 1 1<br>.8 .8 .8 .8<br>.6 .6 .6 .6<br>.4 .4 .4 .4<br>.2 .2 .2 .2<br>Business Practices Score Business Practices Score Business Practices Score Business Practices Score<br>0 0 0 0<br><!-- End of picture text --> 30
**Table 1: Summary Statistics**

||Full S|ample|||Mean|s by Coun|try|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Mean|SD|Bangladesh|Chile|Ghana|Kenya|Mexico|Nigeria|Sri Lanka|
|Male|0.23|0.42|0.99|0.09|0.78|0.00|0.00|0.85|0.47|
|Owner's Age|41.0|12.6|41.9|36.6|39.3|35.7|45.3|30.9|37.3|
|Years of Educ|9.7|4.1|9.7|10.0|14.0|9.0|8.6|14.8|10.8|
|Digitspan recall|4.5|2.1|5.4|n.a.|6.5|5.0|3.3|7.5|6.4|
|Raven test score|5.0|2.9|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|6.9|4.9|4.4|3.2|
|Father Owned a Business|0.35|0.48|n.a.|n.a.|0.36|0.30|n.a.|n.a.|0.42|
|Mother Owned a Business|0.28|0.45|n.a.|n.a.|0.53|0.41|n.a.|n.a.|0.07|
|Trade|0.55|0.50|0.51|0.73|0.44|0.76|0.62|0.04|0.34|
|Manufacturing|0.11|0.32|0.28|0.37|0.24|0.00|0.05|0.24|0.31|
|Firm age (years)|8.7|10.5|12.4|3.5|10.7|6.4|9.2|4.5|10.0|
|Number of Paid Workers|2.3|25.8|12.5|0.2|4.2|0.2|0.2|6.7|3.6|
|Monthly Sales (USD)|2751|25258|13999|293|3571|279|1285|3835|2818|
|Monthly Profits (USD)|647|5523|1461|195|2067|53|512|1996|280|
|Capital Stock (USD)|25229|945813|42757|n.a.|9809|163|1463|229730|6740|
|Registered for Taxes|0.34|0.47|0.46|n.a.|0.61|n.a.|0.31|0.38|0.33|
|Closest competitor within 1km|0.81|0.39|0.96|n.a.|0.63|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|0.70|
|Customers can replace in <1 day|0.44|0.50|0.59|n.a.|0.71|n.a.|n.a.|0.24|n.a.|
|Business Practice Score|0.39|0.25|0.40|0.38|0.44|0.52|0.30|0.76|0.32|
|Marketing Score|0.36|0.31|0.27|0.37|0.41|0.62|0.25|0.66|0.30|
|Buying and Stock Score|0.57|0.30|0.55|0.57|0.42|0.81|0.47|0.78|0.57|
|Record‐Keeping Score|0.46|0.34|0.66|0.44|0.62|0.42|0.38|0.85|0.42|
|Financial Planning Score|0.28|0.32|0.20|0.26|0.31|0.35|0.23|0.73|0.14|
|_Medians_||||||||||
|Median Sales (USD)|500||2676|128|1135|132|667|1290|231|
|Median Profits (USD)|167||294|96|355|47|267|645|93|
|Median Capital Stock (USD)|506||1176|.|2128|39|545|45161|926|
|Median number paid workers|0||4|0|3|0|0|4|0|
|Number of Observations|20400||1724|158|335|3532|10265|1725|2661|

Notes: n.a. denotes not asked in this dataset 31
**Table 2: Cross‐Sectional Associations of Business Practices with Sales and Profits**

||Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Profits|Log Profits|Log Profits|Log Profits|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Business Practices Score|1.211***|0.965***|0.833***|0.795***|1.010***|0.830***|0.697***|0.655***|
||(0.047)|(0.046)|(0.048)|(0.048)|(0.045)|(0.045)|(0.047)|(0.046)|
|Log(Paid Workers)|0.653***|0.475***|0.464***||0.496***|0.365***|0.357***||
||(0.026)|(0.026)|(0.027)||(0.026)|(0.026)|(0.026)||
|Log(Owners Hours)|0.351***|0.313***|0.302***||0.260***|0.232***|0.221***||
||(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.019)||(0.019)|(0.018)|(0.018)||
|Log(Capital Stock)||0.094***|0.085***|||0.072***|0.065***||
|||(0.007)|(0.006)|||(0.006)|(0.006)||
|Log(Inventories)||0.200***|0.198***|||0.148***|0.146***||
|||(0.010)|(0.010)|||(0.009)|(0.009)||
|Owner is male|||0.096**||||0.130***||
||||(0.045)||||(0.045)||
|Age of owner|||‐0.005***<br>(0.001)||||‐0.006***<br>(0.001)||
|Years of education of owner|||0.012***||||0.011***||
||||(0.003)||||(0.003)||
|Digitspan recall|||0.036***||||0.034***||
||||(0.007)||||(0.007)||
|Firm age (years)|||0.008***<br>(0.001)||||0.007***<br>(0.001)||
|Raven test score|||0.019***<br>(0.004)||||0.013***<br>(0.004)||
|Control coefficients vary by country|No|No|No|Yes|No|No|No|Yes|
|Sample Size|18146|18146|18146|18146|18135|18135|18135|18135|

Notes: Robust standard errors in parenthese ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01" Regressions also include dummies for zero or missing values of each control. All regressions include country dummies and country*industry sector dummies.

Columns 4 and 8 allow the coefficients on all control variables to vary by country. 32
|**Table 3: Cross‐Sectional Associations with Index Subco**|**mponents**<br>Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Profit|s Log Profit|s Log Profits|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Proportion of marketing practices used|0.310***|0.229***|0.195***|0.302***|0.246***|0.209***|
||(0.036)|(0.035)|(0.035)|(0.034)|(0.034)|(0.034)|
|Proportion of buying and stock control practices used|0.112***|0.086***|0.072**|0.025|0.005|‐0.006|
||(0.034)|(0.033)|(0.032)|(0.032)|(0.032)|(0.032)|
|Proportion of record‐keeping practices used|0.574***|0.459***|0.409***|0.479***|0.394***|0.344***|
||(0.035)|(0.034)|(0.034)|(0.033)|(0.033)|(0.033)|
|Proportion of financial planning practices used|0.152***|0.136***|0.109***|0.117***|0.104***|0.078**|
||(0.039)|(0.038)|(0.038)|(0.037)|(0.036)|(0.036)|
|Log(Paid Workers)|0.654***|0.476***|0.466***|0.497***|0.367***|0.359***|
||(0.026)|(0.026)|(0.027)|(0.026)|(0.026)|(0.026)|
|Log(Owners Hours)|0.351***|0.313***|0.302***|0.260***|0.232***|0.221***|
||(0.020)|(0.019)|(0.019)|(0.019)|(0.018)|(0.018)|
|Log(Capital Stock)||0.092***|0.084***||0.071***|0.064***|
|||(0.007)|(0.007)||(0.006)|(0.006)|
|Log(Inventories)||0.200***|0.198***||0.149***|0.147***|
|||(0.010)|(0.010)||(0.009)|(0.009)|
|Owner is male|||0.100**|||0.134***|
||||(0.045)|||(0.045)|
|Age of owner|||‐0.005***|||‐0.006***|
||||(0.001)|||(0.001)|
|Years of education of owner|||0.012***|||0.011***|
||||(0.003)|||(0.003)|
|Digitspan recall|||0.035***|||0.033***|
||||(0.007)|||(0.007)|
|Firm age (years)|||0.008***|||0.007***|
||||(0.001)|||(0.001)|
|Raven test score|||0.019***<br>(0.004)|||0.013***<br>(0.004)|
|Sample Size<br>Notes:<br>Robust standard errors in parentheses, *, **, *** indic<br>respectively<br>Regressions also include dummies for zero or missing<br>All regressions include country dummies and industry|18102<br>a ** p<0.05<br>values of e<br>sector dum|18102<br>*** p<0.0<br>ach contro<br>mies.|18102<br>1"<br>l.|18089|18089|18089|

33
**Table 4: Baseline Business Score and Survival Dynamics**

||1‐year<br>Survival|1‐year<br>Survival|1‐year<br>Survival|1‐year<br>Survival|5.5 Year<br>Survival|1‐year<br>Sales Growth|1‐year<br> Sales Growth|5.5 Year<br> Sales Growth|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Baseline Business Practices Score|0.055***|0.039**|0.038**|0.022|0.110**|0.476***|0.277***|0.556***|
||(0.017)|(0.017)|(0.016)|(0.017)|(0.053)|(0.087)|(0.089)|(0.196)|
|Baseline log(paid workers)||0.025***|0.015**|0.011|‐0.019||0.110**|‐0.025|
|||(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.015)||(0.043)|(0.088)|
|Male|||0.028***|0.023**|||0.142***||
||||(0.010)|(0.010)|||(0.052)||
|Owner's Age at Baseline|||0.002***|0.002***|||‐0.004**||
||||(0.000)|(0.000)|||(0.002)||
|Owner's Years of Education|||‐0.001|‐0.001|||0.034***||
||||(0.001)|(0.001)|||(0.006)||
|Digitspan Recall|||0.000|‐0.000|||‐0.010||
||||(0.002)|(0.002)|||(0.011)||
|Age of Firm at Baseline|||0.003***|0.003***|||0.001||
||||(0.001)|(0.001)|||(0.002)||
|Raven test score|||0.003***|0.003***|||0.013**||
||||(0.001)|(0.001)|||(0.006)||
|Baseline Log Sales||||0.005*||‐0.697***|‐0.760***|‐0.798***|
|||||(0.003)||(0.015)|(0.017)|(0.035)|
|Baseline Log Profits||||0.006*|||0.079***||
|||||(0.003)|||(0.018)||
|Sample Size|7016|7016|7015|6847|1413|5689|5629|1152|
|Mean of Dependent Variable|0.912|0.912|0.912|0.913|0.874|0.394|0.392|0.483|

# Notes:

Marginal effects from probit estimation shown in columns 1‐5, regression estimates in columns 6‐8. Robust standard errors in parentheses, *, **, *** denote significance at the 10, 5, and 1 percent levels respectively. Columns 1 to 4, and 6 and 7 are data from Kenya, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka. Columns 5 and 8 are from Sri Lanka only. All specifications include sector and country dummies, and controls for missing values of the control variables where needed. Sector is defined as manufacturing, trade, services or other for columns 1 to 5, and defined at the detailed country*sector level for columns 6 to 8 34
# **Table 5: Reconciling our results with experimental estimates**

|Sample|Training Program|Treatment Effect on<br>Business Practices|Log(Sales)<br>95% confi<br>for treatm|Log(Profits)<br>dence interval<br>ent effect on|Implied Effect from<br>Log(Sales)|Association in Table 2<br>Log(Profits)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Sri Lankan women|ILO SIYB five day course|0.058***<br>(0.016)|[‐0.23, +0.15]|[‐0.12, +0.17]|0.046|0.038|
|Sri Lankan men|ILO SIYB five day course|0.056***<br>(0.010)|[‐0.06, +0.17]|[+0.01, +0.18]|0.045|0.037|
|Kenyan women|ILO GET Ahead five day course|0.042***<br>(0.007)|[+0.00, +0.18]|[‐0.01, +0.16]|0.033|0.028|
|_Related studies_|||||||
|Chilean unemployed (Martínez et al., 2013)|MESP: three weeks intensive training<br>+ 3 months mentoring (+ grant)|0.180***||[+0.08, +0.79]||0.12|
|South African firms(Anderson MacDonald et al,2|014) Business Bridge: 80 hours over 2 months|0.260***|[+0.18,+1.39]|[‐0.00,+1.36]|0.21|0.17|
|Notes:|||||||

Treatment effects on log sales and log profits for Sri Lankan women taken from Table 3 of de Mel et al. (2014). Treatment effects for Sri Lankan men and Kenyan women calculated approximately one year after training. Implied effects from association in Table 2 are calculated by multiplying the treatment effect on business practices by the coefficient in column 4 (sales) and column 8 (profits) from Table 2.

Chile estimates: estimated effect on business practices calculated as 4.493/25 from Table 4 of Martinez et al. (2013); estimated effect on log profits approximated by change in self‐employment income relative to control mean South African estimates: estimated effect on business practices calculated from marketing treatment as average of effect sizes on each of 30 practices measured; effect on profits and sales approximated by percentage change in levels relative to control means.

35
|**Table 6: Which Factors are Associated with Higher Business Pr**|**actices?**|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Dependent variable: Business Practices Score||||||||
|Years of education of owner|0.012***||||||0.011***|
||(0.000)||||||(0.000)|
|Digitspan recall|0.010***||||||0.009***|
||(0.001)||||||(0.001)|
|Raven test score|0.003***||||||0.003***|
||(0.001)||||||(0.001)|
|Owner is male|0.026***|0.029***|0.027***|0.015**|0.029***|0.026***|0.008|
||(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|(0.007)|
|Age of owner|‐0.001***|‐0.002***|‐0.002***|‐0.002**|* ‐0.002***|‐0.003**|* ‐0.001***|
||(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|
|Father owned a business||0.016***|||||0.011**|
|||(0.005)|||||(0.005)|
|Mother owned a business||0.015***|||||0.011**|
|||(0.006)|||||(0.005)|
|Has between 1 and 4 competitors|||0.005||||0.013|
||||(0.010)||||(0.009)|
|Has between 5 and 9 competitors|||‐0.003||||0.008|
||||(0.010)||||(0.010)|
|Has between 10 and 20 competitors|||‐0.002||||0.005|
||||(0.010)||||(0.010)|
|Has 21+ competitors|||0.010||||0.016|
||||(0.010)||||(0.010)|
|Most important competitor is located within 1 km of business||||‐0.013|||‐0.007|
|||||(0.008)|||(0.008)|
|Would take less than a day for customer to replace them|||||‐0.017***||‐0.003|
||||||(0.007)||(0.006)|
|1 to 4 paid workers||||||0.101***|0.087***|
|||||||(0.005)|(0.005)|
|5 to 9 paid workers||||||0.143***|0.119***|
|||||||(0.009)|(0.008)|
|10 to 14 paid workers||||||0.172***|0.143***|
|||||||(0.010)|(0.010)|
|15 to 20 paid workers||||||0.190***|0.156***|
|||||||(0.014)|(0.014)|
|21+ paid workers||||||0.235***|0.193***|
|||||||(0.014)|(0.013)|
|Owner started business themselves|||||||0.019***|
||||||||(0.007)|
|Sample Size|20162|20162|20162|20162|20162|20162|20162|
|Notes:<br>Robust standard errors in parentheses. *, **, *** denote signif<br>All regressions also control for sector, country, and for missing|icance at t<br>values of|he 10, 5 an<br>the control|d 1 percen<br>variables|t levels re<br>where ne|spectively.<br>eded.|||

36
# **<mark>Table A1: Business Training Does Not Affect Reporting</mark>**

|**Dependent variable:**Businesspractice score from audit less businesspractice scor|e from survey|
|---|---|
|Randomly Assigned to Training Treatment|0.013<br>(0.027)|
|Sample Size|200|
|Mean Difference between Audit and Survey|‐0.065|
|SD of Difference|0.189|
|Robust standard error in parentheses.||
|*, **, *** denotes significance at the 10, 5, and 1 percent levels respectively.||
|Note: data are from Sri Lanka only||

|**Table A2: Robustness to Form of Aggregating Business**|**Practices**<br>Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|Log Sales|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Business Practices Score|1.361***|||0.614***|||
||(0.096)|||(0.089)|||
|First Principal Component of Business Practices||0.120***<br>(0.008)|||0.057***<br>(0.008)||
|Average of Z‐scores of Business Practices|||0.628***<br>(0.044)|||0.287***<br>(0.041)|
|Log(Paid Workers)|0.793***|0.776***|0.788***|0.553***|0.545***|0.550***|
||(0.027)|(0.027)|(0.027)|(0.027)|(0.027)|(0.027)|
|Log(Owners Hours)|0.106***|0.113***|0.107***|0.078***|0.079***|0.078***|
||(0.030)|(0.029)|(0.029)|(0.027)|(0.027)|(0.027)|
|Log(Capital Stock)||||0.082***|0.081***|0.082***|
|||||(0.009)|(0.009)|(0.009)|
|Log(Inventories)||||0.232***|0.231***|0.232***|
|||||(0.011)|(0.011)|(0.011)|
|Sample Size|4474|4474|4474|4474|4474|4474|
|Business Practices Mean|0.353|‐0.073|‐0.203|0.353|‐0.073|‐0.203|
|Business Practices SD|0.196|2.468|0.433|0.196|2.468|0.433|
|**Implied Effect of a 1 S.D. change in businesspractices**<br>Notes:<br>Robust standard errors in parentheses, *, **, *** indic<br>respectively<br>Regressions also include dummies for zero or missing<br>All regressions include country dummies and industry<br>owner and firm characteristics (sex, age, education, di|**0.267**<br>ate signific<br>values of e<br>sector dum<br>gitspan, ra|**0.296**<br>ance at the<br>ach contro<br>mies. Col<br>ven test sc|**0.272**<br>10, 5, and<br>l.<br>umns 4 thr<br>ore, age of|**0.120**<br>1 percent<br>ough 6 also<br>firm).|**0.141**<br>levels<br>control f|**0.124**<br>or|

37
|**Table A3: Cross‐Sectional Prod**|**uctivity Relati**<br>Bangladesh|**onships b**<br>Chile|**y Country**<br>Ghana|Kenya|Mexico|Nigeria|Sri Lanka|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Panel A: Labor Productivity**||||||||
|Business Practices Score|1.140***|0.944***|0.661*|0.973***|1.001***|2.636***|1.604***|
||(0.150)|(0.338)|(0.337)|(0.098)|(0.056)|(0.284)|(0.127)|
|Log(Paid Workers)|0.825***|0.720|0.817***|0.325**|0.619***|0.437***|0.636***|
||(0.030)|(0.722)|(0.126)|(0.126)|(0.071)|(0.062)|(0.066)|
|Log(Owners Hours)|‐0.061*|0.667***|0.325**|0.625***|0.465***|0.201***|0.358***|
||(0.034)|(0.100)|(0.152)|(0.056)|(0.027)|(0.072)|(0.056)|
|**Panel B: Total Factor Productiv**|**ity**|||||||
|Business Practices Score|0.471***|0.650*|0.121|0.572***|0.874***|2.481***|0.862***|
||(0.129)|(0.334)|(0.279)|(0.094)|(0.055)|(0.287)|(0.126)|
|Log(Paid Workers)|0.540***|0.256|0.510***|0.215*|0.603***|0.402***|0.484***|
||(0.030)|(0.570)|(0.116)|(0.125)|(0.069)|(0.064)|(0.070)|
|Log(Owners Hours)|0.005|0.592***|0.113|0.382***|0.416***|0.190***|0.210***|
||(0.031)|(0.104)|(0.128)|(0.056)|(0.027)|(0.071)|(0.056)|
|Log(Capital Stock)|0.048***|n.a.|0.263***|0.057***|0.128***|‐0.038|0.090***|
||(0.011)|n.a.|(0.040)|(0.016)|(0.008)|(0.027)|(0.014)|
|Log(Inventories)|0.303***|0.223***|0.177***|0.278***|n.a.|0.192***|0.190***|
||(0.016)|(0.063)|(0.036)|(0.016)|n.a.|(0.036)|(0.017)|
|Sample Size<br>Notes:<br>Robust Standard Errors in Pare<br>percent levels respectively.<br>All regressions also include se<br>factors of production.<br>n.a. Capital stock not available|1724<br>ntheses, *, **<br>ctor dummies<br>in Chile data,|146<br>, *** indic<br>, and contr<br>Inventori|321<br>ate signific<br>ols for zer<br>es not avail|3413<br>ance at the<br>o or missin<br>able in Me|8585<br>10, 5, and<br>g values of<br>xico data|1499<br>1<br>the|2458|

38
|**Table A4: Practice Means by Country and Association of Labor Productivity with Individual Practice**|**s**||||||||**Labor Prod**|**uctivity**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||All|Banglades|h Chile|Ghana|Kenya|Mexico|Nigeria|Sri Lanka|Coefficient|Std Error|
|Marketing 1: Visited competitor's business to see prices|0.41|0.36|0.44|0.49|**0.73**|0.24|**0.74**|0.41|0.160|0.019|
|Marketing 2: Visited competitor's business to see products|0.39|0.36|0.41|**0.52**|**0.75**|0.22|**0.70**|0.34|0.181|0.020|
|Marketing 3: Asked existing customers what other products they should offer|0.49|0.40|0.44|**0.59**|**0.82**|0.35|**0.74**|0.43|0.195|0.019|
|Marketing 4: Talked with former customer to see why stopped buying|0.33|0.33|0.15|0.40|**0.76**|0.15|**0.59**|0.26|0.234|0.022|
|Marketing 5: Asked supplier what products selling well|0.44|0.37|0.39|0.38|**0.67**|0.36|**0.62**|0.33|0.255|0.019|
|Marketing 6: Used a special offer to attract customers|0.29|0.02|**0.55**|0.32|0.45|0.24|**0.61**|0.18|0.273|0.021|
|Marketing 7: Have done advertising in last 6 months|0.19|0.04|0.23|0.18|0.14|0.17|**0.61**|0.15|0.252|0.026|
|Buying & Stock Control 1: negotiate for lower price|**0.52**|**0.81**|0.37|**0.51**|**0.89**|0.29|**0.72**|0.55|0.191|0.021|
|Buying & Stock Control 2: compare alternate suppliers|0.49|**0.59**|0.54|0.49|0.84|0.31|**0.75**|0.48|0.240|0.020|
|Buying & Stock Control 3: Don't run out of stock frequently|**0.72**|0.26|**0.82**|0.26|**0.71**|**0.80**|**0.88**|0.68|‐0.070|0.020|
|Costing & Record Keeping 1: Keep written records|0.49|**0.76**|0.45|**0.80**|0.33|0.44|**0.97**|0.36|0.347|0.018|
|Costing & Record Keeping 2: record every purchase and sale|0.42|**0.60**|0.43|**0.66**|0.24|n.a.|**0.80**|0.30|0.378|0.031|
|Costing & Record Keeping 3: can use records to know cash on hand|0.41|**0.60**|0.42|**0.61**|0.23|0.39|**0.79**|0.28|0.368|0.020|
|Costing & Record Keeping 4: use records to know whether sales of product increase or decrease|0.37|0.48|0.42|**0.59**|0.21|0.36|**0.77**|0.25|0.358|0.020|
|Costing & Record Keeping 5: worked out cost of each main product|**0.59**|**0.77**|**0.61**|**0.73**|**0.74**|0.42|**0.89**|0.63|0.283|0.019|
|Costing & Record Keeping 6: know which goods make most profit per item|**0.78**|**0.86**|**0.72**|**0.84**|**0.97**|**0.64**|**0.92**|0.88|0.306|0.024|
|Costing & Record Keeping 7: have a written budget for monthly expenses|0.33|0.49|0.33|0.38|0.27|0.26|**0.85**|0.20|0.342|0.020|
|Costing & Record Keeping 8: have records that could document ability to pay to bank|0.33|**0.67**|0.22|0.38|0.38|0.14|**0.83**|0.41|0.407|0.022|
|Financial Planning 1: review financial performance monthly|0.32|0.25|0.45|0.38|0.36|0.27|**0.67**|0.26|0.202|0.020|
|Financial Planning 2: have sales target for next year|0.40|0.36|**0.59**|0.41|**0.56**|0.32|**0.86**|0.21|0.241|0.019|
|Financial Planning 3: compare sales goal to target monthly|0.26|0.15|0.41|0.35|0.29|0.25|**0.61**|0.06|0.215|0.021|
|Financial Planning 4: have a budget of costs for next year|0.26|0.22|0.28|0.25|0.21|0.24|**0.79**|0.11|0.284|0.022|
|Financial Planning 5: prepare profit and loss statement|0.24|0.12|0.05|0.40|n.a.|0.29|n.a.|0.13|0.272|0.025|
|Financial Planning 6: prepare cashflow statement|0.10|0.12|0.07|0.14|n.a.|0.10|n.a.|0.09|0.359|0.035|
|Financial Planning 7: prepare balance sheet|0.09|0.05|0.05|0.15|n.a.|0.09|n.a.|0.10|0.535|0.039|
|Financial Planning8:prepare income and expenditure statement<br>Notes: columns 1 to 8 show the proportion of firms in each country sample which use the particula<br>standard error respectively from regressing log sales on this individual practice, along with control<br>Means in**bold**are those with adoption rates of 50 percent or higher.|0.26<br>r busines<br>s for labo|0.36<br>s practice. Colu<br>r usage, indust|0.21<br>mns 9 and<br>ry, and cou|0.39<br>10 report t<br>ntry as in c|n.a.<br>he regressi<br>olumn 1 of|0.26<br>on coeffici<br>Table 2.|n.a.<br>ent and|0.17|0.258|0.023|

39
<!-- Start of picture text --> Figure A1: Are the Returns to Business Practices Non-linear?<br>Business practices in range<br>.8<br>.6<br>.4<br>.2<br>0<br>Association with Log Profits after controls<br>0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.3 0.3 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.5 0.5 to 0.6 0.6 to 0.7 0.7 to 0.8 0.8 to 0.9 0.9 to 1.0<br><!-- End of picture text --> Notes: Figure plots coefficients from estimating column 8 of Table 2, but using nine dummies for different business practice score ranges instead of a linear term in business practice score.

40