metadata: authors: 0: author: Ruggeri Laderchi,Caterina
1: author: Rijkers,Bob
2: author: Teal,Francis John
count: Ethiopia
docna: 0: docna: Who benefits from promoting small and medium
            scale enterprises ? some empirical evidence from Ethiopia
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Urban Housing and Land Settlements,Labor Management and Relations,Labor Markets,Labor Policies,Urban Governance and Management,Urban Housing,Educational Sciences,Municipal Management and Reform,Rural Labor Markets
teratopic: Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Social Protections and Labor,Finance and Financial Sector Development
abstracts: cdata!: The Addis Ababa Integrated Housing
            Development Program aims to tackle the housing shortage and
            unemployment that prevail in Addis Ababa by deploying and
            supporting small and medium scale enterprises to construct
            low-cost housing using technologies novel for Ethiopia. The
            motivation for such support is predicated on the view that
            small firms create more jobs per unit of investment by
            virtue of being more labor intensive and that the jobs so
            created are concentrated among the low-skilled and hence the
            poor. To assess whether the program has succeeded in biasing
            technology adoption in favor of labor and thereby
            contributed to poverty reduction, the impact of the program
            on technology usage, labor intensity, and earnings is
            investigated using a unique matched workers-firms dataset,
            the Addis Ababa Construction Enterprise Survey. The data are
            representative of all registered construction firms in Addis
            and were collected specifically for the purpose of analyzing
            the impact of the program. The authors find that program
            firms do not adopt different technologies and are not more
            labor intensive than non-program firms. There is an earnings
            premium for program participants, who tend to be relatively
            well-educated, which is heterogeneous and highest for those
            at the bottom of the earnings distribution.
geo_reg_key: 517191
repnme: repnme: Who benefits from promoting small and
            medium scale enterprises ? some empirical evidence from Ethiopia
display_title: Who benefits from promoting small
            and medium scale enterprises some empirical evidence from Ethiopia
listing_relative_url: /research/2008/05/9474987/benefits-promoting-small-medium-scale-enterprises-some-empirical-evidence-ethiopia
topicv3: Active Labor Market Policies m1326265 1654,Education m1327048 470,Labor Market Regulation m1327620 1132,Land and Housing m1327648 817,Jobs m1503931 2670
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Social Protections and Labor,Finance and Financial Sector Development
no_of_pages: 28
author_keys: 0: author_key: 669220
1: author_key: 906035
2: author_key: 454017
model_extractions: WPS4629 Policy ReseaRch WoRking PaPeR 4629 Who Benefits from Promoting Small and Medium Scale Enterprises? Some Empirical Evidence from Ethiopia _Bob Rijkers Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi Francis Teal_ The World Bank Africa Region Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Department May 2008
Policy ReseaRch WoRking PaPeR 4629

# **Abstract**

The Addis Ababa Integrated Housing Development Program aims to tackle the housing shortage and unemployment that prevail in Addis Ababa by deploying and supporting small and medium scale enterprises to construct low-cost housing using technologies novel for Ethiopia. The motivation for such support is predicated on the view that small firms create more jobs per unit of investment by virtue of being more labor intensive and that the jobs so created are concentrated among the low-skilled and hence the poor. To assess whether the program has succeeded in biasing technology adoption in favor of labor and thereby contributed to poverty reduction, the impact of the program on technology usage, labor intensity, and earnings is investigated using a unique matched workers-firms dataset, the Addis Ababa Construction Enterprise Survey. The data are representative of all registered construction firms in Addis and were collected specifically for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the program. The authors find that program firms do not adopt different technologies and are not more labor intensive than non-program firms. There is an earnings premium for program participants, who tend to be relatively well-educated, which is heterogeneous and highest for those at the bottom of the earnings distribution.

This paper—a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Department, Africa Region—is part of a larger effort in the department to support evidence based policy making. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at cruggeriladerchi@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
# **Who Benefits from Promoting Small and Medium Scale Enterprises? Some Empirical Evidence from Ethiopia**

Bob Rijkers<sup>1</sup> , Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi<sup>2</sup> and Francis Teal<sup>1</sup> * 1Centre for the Study of African Economies Department of Economics University of Oxford 2World Bank, Washington DC We would like to thank the staff of the Ethiopian Economic Association, in particular Ato Kibre Moges, Ato Daniel Aklilu and Ato Assefa Adamassie and the supervisors and enumerators of the Addis Ababa Construction Enterprises Survey. Discussions with Dr Wubshet Berhanu, City Manager, Addis Ababa City Government, and Woz. Tsedale Mamo, Manager, Addis Ababa Housing Development Project Office and other staff at the Addis Ababa Housing Development Project Office have been most helpful to frame the analysis of this study. We also owe gratitude to Justin Sandefur at Oxford University as well as Emily Kallaur, Rumana Huque and Louise Fox at the World Bank. Seminar participants at a CSAE seminar at Oxford University, the CSAE conference on economic development and the IZA/World Bank conference on employment and development provided useful feedback. Bob Rijkers gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds and the Herbert and Ilse Frankel Memorial Fund at Oriel College, Oxford. All errors are our own. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

*Authors’ names are in alphabetical order. Corresponding authors e-mail addresses: <u>brijkers@worldbank.org</u> and <u>francis.teal@economics.ox.ac.uk</u>
# **1. Introduction**

Whether or not programs which promote small and medium scale (SME) enterprises can stimulate job creation and contribute to poverty reduction in developing countries is an important question. The motivation for such support is often predicated on the view that small firms create more jobs per unit of investment by virtue of being more labor intensive and that the jobs so created are concentrated among the low-skilled and hence the poor. In spite of the policy prominence of SME support programs, the empirical evidence for these propositions is weak. In a recent review of the literature Betcherman et al. (2004, p51) conclude: _The evaluation literature on the labor market impacts of ALMPs [Active Labor Market Programs] is thinnest in the case of micro-enterprise development and self-employment assistance programs. There are relatively few studies and of those that do exist, many are concerned with the program's effect on business development rather than on the future employment and earnings of participants._ The sparse available empirical evidence is entirely based on the experiences of developed and transition economies and suggests that micro-enterprise development programs typically have a positive impact on the employment prospects of participants, while their impact on earnings is mixed (see e.g. Fretwell et al, 1999, Tzannatos & Dar, 1999, and Betcherman et al. 2004).

This paper provides an analysis of the Addis Ababa Integrated Housing Program (AAIHDP) which is an active labor market program that attempts to tackle the severe housing shortages and high unemployment that prevail in Addis Ababa by deploying and supporting labor-intensive SMEs to construct low-cost condominium housing using technologies novel for Ethiopia. To assess whether the program has succeeded in biasing technology adoption in favor of labor and thereby contributed to poverty reduction, the impact of the program on technology usage, labor intensity and earnings of participants is investigated using a unique matched workers-firms dataset, the Addis Ababa Construction Enterprise Survey (AACES), which is representative of all registered construction firms in Addis, and was designed specifically for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the program.<sup>1</sup> The paper is organized as follows. The next section describes the program and its rationale. The data collected to analyze it is presented in section 3, which also presents descriptive statistics on the characteristics of program and non-program firms. In section 4 we assess the impact of the program on technology adoption. Section 5 describes the differences between program participants and non-participants and assesses the program’s impact on earnings A final section concludes.

# **2. The Addis Ababa Integrated Housing Program (AAIHDP)**

By creating and supporting SMEs the AAIHDP aims to tackle simultaneously the problems of a housing shortage and unemployment. The specific objectives of the program include ` _promotion of micro and small-scale enterprises, which can absorb more labor force and operate at a lower overhead cost'_ as well as ` _promotion of cost efficient housing construction technology_ ' (HDPO, 2004, p1). To achieve these objectives, the AAIHDP aims to construct 192,500 houses, generate 80,000 job opportunities, support 1,300 existing SMEs and create another 1,000 new ones.

To construct housing affordable by low-income dwellers, the IHDP designed a production process that deviates from the one conventionally used in the construction sector. The low-cost aspect of the program consists in building a less luxurious, homogeneous type of housing using novel lowcost construction technologies such as pre-cast beams and ribslabs, fixed-price contracts and standardized production procedures permitting greater specialization. To implement this production process, the IHDP intervenes in the construction sector by both creating new SMEs and providing support for firms in the program.

Participation in the program is conditional on passing a test. Anybody who has either

> 1 This paper focuses on these aspects of SMEs and does not consider other possible benefits, such as their contributions to competition, entrepreneurship and innovation, creation of products which are more suitable for the poor as well as social and political dividends. See e.g. Biggs (2002) and Halberg (2001) for reviews of the empirical evidence regarding such benefits.

-2-
graduated from a Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) college or can show proof of having experience in the construction sector can take a test to participate in the program. Successful candidates can establish an enterprise, either by themselves or together with other successful applicants. Individuals who failed the test are allowed to resit the test at a later date and may attempt to upgrade their skills by joining successful candidates in the project as apprentices.

Once firms are formed, they can register their interest in IHDP construction work with the Program Office, which is in charge of implementing the program. Existing firms are not allowed to compete for IHDP jobs unless IHDP capacity does not suffice. In theory, incumbent firms could attempt to join the program by having their employees take the test and regroup as a "new" firm. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is not very common. The IHDP does not create firms which can execute foundational and structural works but it does hire existing firms for these tasks. For the purposes of this paper, firms which can execute such tasks are referred to as contractors, while firms which cannot are referred to as constructors. The latter category consists predominantly of SMEs and is consequently of focal interest.<sup>2</sup> The IHDP provides wide-ranging support to firms participating in the program by i) providing and, in certain cases, subsidizing a place to work, ii) facilitating access to credit, iii) providing training and access to inputs (on credit), iv) subsidizing machinery for firms producing rebars (reinforcement bars) or hollow blocks, v) providing training to firms engaging in pre-cast beam and hollow block production and vi) awarding contracts to program firms. Not all newly created SMEs are awarded contracts but IHDP contracts are almost exclusively awarded to firms created by the IHDP (except for contracts assigned to contractors).

By providing these different types of support the program alters the factor prices different firms face, which in turn affect technology adoption and factor choices and thus labor demand. The program does not affect technology adoption or factor usage directly. The modeling challenge is to identify the impact of the IHDP interventions on labor demand and earnings and separate the effect of the program from differences between participants and non-participants not due to participation.

At this juncture, it is important to note that the unit of analysis in this paper is the firm, not the house being constructed. Our data enable us to assess the impact of the program on the technology and labor intensity of constructors and contractors separately. The labor demand of the housing construction sector as a whole may also be affected by the mix between constructors and contractors in the construction process, if these firms differ in their labor intensity and/or adopt different technologies. Unfortunately, our data do not enable us to rigorously assess whether, and if so to what extent, such substitution effects are occurring.

# **3. The Addis Ababa Construction Enterprise Survey (AACES)**

The AACES is a survey of matched firms and workers in the construction sector in Addis Ababa, designed specifically for the purpose of analyzing the employment creation impact of the IHDP World Bank (2007). It was conducted by the Ethiopian Economic Association in collaboration with the World Bank in December 2006 and early January 2007. It covered 240 firms and 971 workers, 241 of whom were casual workers. The workers' data contains detailed information on workers' earnings, their employment history, experience, skills, educational background, program participation, job satisfaction, motivation for choosing their current activity and on a number of socio-demographic characteristics including household characteristics and parental background.

The worker data will be considered in section 5, here we focus on the firm data. The sample of firms contains data on 103 non-program constructors, 92 program constructors, 17 non-program contractors and 28 program contractors. A program firm is defined as a firm which fulfils at least one of three criteria; i) having been created by the program ii) having received support from the program or iii) having worked for the program.<sup>3</sup> The firm-level data provide information on a rich set of firm

> 2 Conventionally, all firms with a contracting license grade - an indicator of technological capability - are referred to as contractors. Firms with a contracting license grade between 1 and 6 can execute foundational and structural works, while those with a license grade between 7 and 10 cannot. For expositional purposes we only refer to a subset of this group, namely those with a license grade between 1 and 6 as "contractors" in this paper.

> 3 In addition, there was one firm engaging in pre-cast beam production which did not meet any of these criteria

-3-
characteristics, including their activities, age, size, capital stock, inputs, outputs, expenditures, revenues, organizational and occupational structure, program participation and receipt of program support, access to finance and inputs, skilled personnel, constraints, expectations, their labor force and wages. In addition, the data contain information on the volume and total costs of inputs and outputs, enabling us to compute firm-specific input and output-prices, which provide natural instruments for factor choices.

Table 1 present descriptive statistics on program firms and non-program firms. On average, program firms employ more workers, have more capital, use more inputs and have a better educated workforce. In Graph 1, the amount of capital per worker is plotted against the size of the firm measured in terms of the number of employees. Capital intensity does not seem to differ between program and non-program firms and also does not vary systematically with firm-size, though contractors are significantly more capital intensive than constructors. These findings are backed up by regressions of capital intensity on firm-size (column 1), firm-size and program-participation (column 2), and firm-size, program-participation, and being a contractor (column 3) presented in Table 2. Neither the program dummy, nor the interactions of the program dummy with firm-size or being a contractor<sup>4</sup> are significant, confirming that program firms are not more or less capital intensive than non-program firms. Moreover, the results do not suggest a relationship between firm-size and capital intensity. Contractors are significantly more capital-intensive than constructors, but the capitalintensity of contractors also does not vary with firm size.

Input-intensity does not seem to depend on program participation or on firm-size either, as illustrated by Graph 2, which plots input usage per worker against the number of workers. The graph does show that contractors seem to use more inputs per worker. Regressions presented in Table 3 reveal that input intensity is strongly correlated with capital-intensity and confirm that contractors use more input per worker, even after controlling for firm-size and capital intensity (see column 4). Size variables and program participation indeed have no impact, corroborating the intuition from the graphs.

## **4. Assessing Program Impact on Technology Adoption**

# _4.1 A Cobb-Douglas Technology_

To assess the impact of the IHDP on technology adoption and productivity a human capital augmented Cobb-Douglas production function is estimated; output, _Y_ , is modeled as a function of physical capital, _K_ , human capital, _H,_ material inputs, _M_ , and a technology parameter, _A,_ using the familiar formula: _Y_ = _AK_ α _H_ β _M_ γ .<sup>5</sup> Human capital _, H_ , is assumed to be a function of the educational attainment of the workforce, _E,_ and the number of workers _L_ : _H_ = _Le h_ ( _E_ ) . This formulation enables us to control for both the quantity of labor, proxied by the number of workers, _L,_ and the "quality" of labor, proxied by some function _h(E)_ of the average educational attainment of workers. Controlling for the skill level of workers is important since it will be shown that workers in program firms are on average better δ educated. Taking logs and imposing a linear functional form, i.e. _h_ ( _E_ ) = _E_ , yields an β estimable equation of the human capital augmented production function:

> but was classified as a program firm since the pre-cast beam technology is not widely applied by non-program firms as yet.

> 4 As a robustness check, controls for different activities were included, to analyse whether the composition of the sample could be driving the results. Controlling for activities did not overturn the result, nor did controlling for the interaction between activities and the size of the firms. Results omitted to conserve space, but available upon request

> 5 Our starting point for assessing technology differences was the more general translog production function. Since the translog specifications comfortably accepted Cobb-Douglas restrictions, we proceeded with CobbDouglas production functions. Results are omitted to conserve space, but available upon request.

-4-
ln _Y_ = ln _A_ + α ln _K_ + β ln _L_ + δ ln _E_ +γ ln _M_ + _u_ The "quality" of the labor force matters if δ≠0. In our baseline specifications, however, δ is assumed to be zero (an assumption that is relaxed later).

To test whether program firms use a technology that differs from non-program firms, all the parameters of the production function are interacted with program participation, _P_ .

Under the null hypothesis of no differences in technology adoption, all interaction terms should be zero, both individually and jointly. The null hypothesis is rejected if at least one of them or any combination of them is significantly different from zero. This testing procedure is very general since we allow the program to impact on all parameters of the production function.

Table 4 presents the results of OLS estimation of the production function. The dependent variable is the log of annual revenue.<sup>6</sup> The baseline explanatory variables are the factors of production and activity dummies. Information on one or more explanatory variables are missing for 70 firms, forcing us to reduce our sample to 170 observations. The specification presented in column 1 tests whether the technology used by contractors is different from that used by constructors. This is indeed the case; the dummy on being a contractor and the interaction term on being a contractor and capital are both strongly significant. Since the group of constructors is of focal interest and because the sample of contractors for whom production functions can be estimated is very small, we focus on constructors for the rest of this subsection.

The specification in column 2 tests for differences in technology between program constructors and non-program constructors. The null hypothesis that no such differences exist cannot be rejected since neither the program dummy nor the interaction terms of program participation with labor, capital and inputs are individually or jointly significant.

The specification in column 3 attempts to assess the impact of the heterogeneity of labor by including measures of the educational attainment and age of the workforce as additional explanatory variables. Neither enters significantly; the higher educational achievement of workers in program firms does not translate into higher productivity.

Overall, the basic Cobb-Douglas specifications fit the data rather well, as judged by the adjusted R<sup>2</sup> consistently exceeding 0.6. In addition, parameter estimates are consistent with Constant Returns to Scale for both program and non-program firms.

# _4.2 Tackling Endogeneity_

It is well-known that OLS-estimates of the production function may be misleading when one or more of the explanatory variables are correlated with the error term, for example because of measurement error, simultaneous determination of inputs and outputs or omitted variable bias (see e.g. Ackerberg,

> 6 Given the existence of a fixed price system, prices for products of program firms and non-program firms might differ, causing revenue to be a misleading indicator of productivity. We investigated this possibility by regressing price deflators on activity dummies and program participation but could not find evidence for systematic price differences between program and non-program firms. In addition, deflating revenue and inputs by output and input price deflators did not affect the overall pattern of results. Results omitted to conserve space, but available upon request.

-5-
2005). In addition to these conventional endogeneity concerns, we have to be on guard for selection bias, which arises when program participation is correlated with the error term, for example because there are unobserved factors not controlled for in the production function which are correlated with both productivity and the decision to participate.

Instrumental variables methods are used to deal with these endogeneity problems.<sup>7</sup> To alleviate instrumenting requirements Constant Returns to Scale restrictions are imposed, enabling us to estimate output per worker as a function of the capital labor ratio and inputs per worker. To further facilitate identification, capital is assumed to be exogenous. The motivation for the latter assumption is that the capital stock is unlikely to change very much in the short run given high adjustment costs, while input usage is typically much more volatile. Given the severity of identification requirements, our strategy is to first assess the impact of the two types of endogeneity in isolation, before attempting to tackle their joint effect. An inputs price index is used as an instrument for inputs usage. Price is a theoretically appealing instrument since it is likely to affect output only through its impact on factor usage. Ackerberg et al. (forthcoming) warn us, however, that orthogonality may nevertheless be violated when price differences are correlated with unobserved quality differences in both inputs and outputs. Program participation is instrumented using the size of the firm at startup, which we have shown to be strongly correlated with program participation. At startup, the firm has not yet benefited from IHDP support; size at startup is consequently exogenous under the fairly mild restriction that there is no direct link between initial size and productivity once current size is accounted for.

The results of our instrumenting regressions are presented in Table 5 and the corresponding first stage regressions are presented in Table A1 in the appendix. In column 1 endogeneity of inputs is the sole concern; program firms and non-program firms are pooled together and input usage is instrumented using the input price deflator, which is a good instrument as judged by the CraggDonald F statistic of 13.24. The resulting parameter estimate of the contribution of inputs to revenue is somewhat higher than the corresponding OLS estimate (presented in Table A2), yet the Hausman test comfortably accepts the null hypothesis of no endogeneity. This suggest that exogeneity of inputs is not a bad assumption, which is consistent with (statistically) random rationing of inputs in the presence of input constraints.

In columns 2 and 3 inputs- and capital per worker are assumed exogenous and selection bias is the key concern. To facilitate identification, column 2 models the impact of the program as a technology shifter. The results do not indicate that the program succeeds in increasing productivity; if anything, program firms are less productive. Moreover, IV estimates are lower than OLS estimates, suggesting upward, rather than downward selection bias. A possible explanation for such upward bias is that the program is capable of selecting the most able workers (amongst applicants). The specification in column 3 is more general as it also allows for an impact of the program on capital and inputs usage. The null hypothesis of no difference in technology cannot be rejected, though the parameter estimates are imprecise. Hausman tests comfortably accept the null of no exogeneity for both specifications, suggesting that the impact of selection bias is not large.

Columns 4 and 5 allow for the coexistence of selection bias and endogeneity of inputs usage. In column 4, the program impact is again modeled using a dummy, which is negative and insignificant. Column 5 adopts a more general specification. Parameter estimates are poorly behaved, probably because the predicted program participation and instrumented interactions are highly correlated. In addition, instruments are weak, as evidenced by the Cragg-Donald F score of 0.749. In short, the results of this estimation are disappointing. Nevertheless, the null hypothesis that the program has no impact on technology adoption is not rejected in either specification and Hausman tests do not reject the null hypothesis of exogeneity.

In conclusion, the finding that program firms do not use a different technology is unlikely to be driven by selection bias or endogeneity of factor inputs.

# **5. Assessing Program Impact on Earnings**

Descriptive statistics, presented in Table 6, confirm that workers in program firms are on average

> 7 We also experimented with control function approaches. The results we obtained were similar to the results obtained using IV methods; they are omitted to conserve space, but available upon request.

-6-
better educated than workers in non-program firms. Table 7 presents probit models of the probability of being hired by a program firm. The first column is the baseline specification with age, gender, education and a dummy for having completed an apprenticeship as explanatory variables. Column 2 adds dummies for prior activities to this baseline specification to test whether program firms draw disproportionately on workers with an underprivileged labor market status. Column 3 adds dummies for workers' entire employment history and column 4 includes both employment history and prior activity dummies.

As to be expected, having a TVET degree is strongly positively associated with the probability of being employed in a program firm. The importance of training is further evidenced by the positive and significant coefficient on having completed an apprenticeship in the past, although this may also reflect the fact that those who do not pass the test can join the firm as apprentices. The insignificance of prior activity dummies reveals that program firms do not draw disproportionately on unemployed workers, casual workers and workers in otherwise marginal jobs. Focusing on the entire employment history of individuals instead demonstrates that workers who have experienced a significant unemployment spell (e.g. longer than three months) in the past, workers who have experience working in a cooperative, as well as workers who have experience as a domestic employee are significantly more likely to be employed in program firms, whereas workers who have experience as casual workers are less likely to be employed in program firms.

To model the impact of the program on wages, _<mark>W</mark>_ <mark>,</mark> a standard earnings function approach is used. Wages are modeled as a function of observable characteristics, _X_ , such as age, education and _<mark>D</mark> j_ <mark>.</mark> firm-characteristics, and the type of firm the worker is employed in <mark>,</mark> The potential endogeneity of participation and schooling are the two major obstacles to successfully estimating this earnings function. Selection bias arises when participants differ from non-participants in terms of unobserved characteristics that affect both earnings potential and the probability of being employed in a program firm, thus creating a correlation between the error term and the regressors and consequently causing the OLS estimator to be biased. To tackle this selection problem the Lee selection correction is used.<sup>8</sup> The potential endogeneity of schooling, arising for example because of a correlation between schooling and ability, is also addressed by means of a control function approach. As pointed out by Söderbom et al. (2005), when the return to education is non-linear, control function estimators of the returns to schooling are likely to result in more precise estimates of schooling than 2SLS estimators. In addition, control function estimates of the returns to schooling are more robust than 2SLS estimators when slope parameters vary with unobserved factors (see also Card, 2001). Of course, a drawback of the control function approach is that it forces us to make (implicit) distributional assumptions which can be difficult to test.

A related modeling problem is that the benefits from participation might well be heterogeneous; those who lack alternative opportunities and have low earnings potential are likely to benefit more from program participation than individuals with high earnings potential. In particular, it is anticipated that the benefits from participating in the program are inversely related to the level of educational attainment. To allow for this possibility, the gains from participation are allowed to depend on observables following Blundell & Costa Dias (2002). Assuming a (log-linear Mincerian relationship between earnings, our estimable equation takes the form: where θ ( _X_ , _Z_ ) is a vector of terms hat correct for endogeneity bias due to selection and the

> 8 This Lee selection correction (see Lee, 1983) is based on the multinomial logit model,which is appropriate since workers can be employed in 4 different types of firms; program contractors, non-program contractors, program constructors and non-program contructors. We also used the Dubin McFadden selection corrections (which outperform the Lee estimator if sample sizes are not too small as shown by Bourguignon et al. (2007)) but this led to very imprecise estimates. In addition, we explored the possibility of doing IV-estimation but could not find sufficiently convincing instruments. We also experimented with matching estimators, but do not present these as they do not allow for selection on unobservables and because results were very similar to those obtained by means of OLS.

-7-
endogeneity of schooling.<sup>9</sup> These selection correction terms are a function of observables that affect both participation and earnings, _X,_ and variables that affect participation only, _Z,_ the exclusion-restrictions. Under the null hypothesis, program participation has no impact on earnings, i.e. _βTP_ =0 and _βXTP_ =0 where _βTP_ is the coefficient on the dummy that indicates that a worker is employed in a program (constructor) firm, while _βXTP_ is the coefficient on the interaction term between program participation and observable characteristics, _X,_ intended to capture heterogeneity in the benefits of program participation. Such heterogeneity exist if the null hypothesis of homogenous returns, _βXTP_ =0 is rejected.

Table 8 presents the results from OLS estimation of earnings functions. Column 1 presents the results of regressing monthly income on days worked, a dummy for being a casual worker, gender, age and its square, years of schooling and its square, employment history dummies and firm type dummies, forcing the gains from program participation to be homogenous. The results are consistent with the literature; returns to schooling are convex,<sup>10</sup> wages for casual workers are significantly lower than those for permanent workers, the age-earnings profile is concave, and the negative coefficient on the gender dummy attests to the existence of widespread discrimination against women in the labor market. Turning to the results of central interest, workers in program constructors earn 25% more than workers in non-program constructing firms, though there is a 60% premium associated with working for a contractor. In column 2 the assumption that the returns to schooling are homogeneous is relaxed and interactions between program participation and returns to schooling are included as additional regressors. While these interaction terms are not significant in this specification, their signs suggest that those with the least education benefit the most from partaking in the program.

In column 3 we allow for the endogeneity of education by including the predicted residual of a model of educational attainment and interactions of this residual with program participation as additional regressors. The model of educational attainment is presented in Table A2 in the appendix and uses distance to school at the age of six and parental occupation as exclusion restrictions. The terms are not jointly significant and parameter estimates do not change very much; the endogeneity of schooling is unlikely to be a serious problem as also evidenced by the Hausman test, which comfortably accepts the null hypothesis of no endogeneity of schooling.

We would like to know why program constructors pay more than non-program constructors and consider firm size, capital intensity and input intensity as candidate explanations.<sup>11</sup> Adding a control for firm-size in column 4 does not affect the pattern of results, which suggests that the program premium is not due to a positive association between firm size and wages.<sup>12</sup> To test whether capital- and input-intensity can explain the program premium, the capital-labor ratio and inputintensity are included as explanatory variables in columns 6 and 7. Unfortunately information on these variables is not available for all workers, forcing us to drop about 40% of our sample. For the resulting subsample the null hypothesis of heterogeneity in the treatment effect is rejected since the interaction terms between schooling and program participation are significant at the 10% level. In addition, the estimated program premium increases and is individually significant.<sup>13</sup> Somewhat

> 9 Note that if returns to program participation are heterogeneous and program participation and schooling are both endogenous, we should also control for the endogeneity of the interaction of schooling and participation. In the context of our model this is done by interacting the terms correcting for selection bias with the terms which correct for the endogeneity of schooling.

> 10 Years of schooling and years of schooling squared are jointly significant at the 5% level.

> 11 We also experimented with other firm characteristics, such as the age of the firm, the organizational structure of the firm (for example whether the firm is a cooperative or not), and the activities the firms engage in, but these variables could not explain why program firms pay more.

> 12 Note that the sample has been reduced by 14 workers. However, differences in sample composition are not driving the results; estimates available upon request.

> 13 These are sample selection effects. To rule out the possibility that changes in coefficients are due to changes in the composition of the sample, specification 4 is re-estimated on the subsample of workers for whom information on the capital- and input- intensity of the firms they work in is available (see column 5). This subsample contains only 11 casual workers, which is reflected in the coefficients on days-worked and the casual dummy; both are now insignificant; the casual-dummy because it is imprecisely estimated; the days worked

-8-
surprisingly, capital per worker and inputs per worker are not significant predictors of earnings, while there seems to be a positive relationship between firm size and earnings.

Table 9 presents results using Lee's selectivity corrections (the underlying multinomial logit model for selection of workers into different types of firms is presented in the Appendix in Table A3 - prior activity and employment history dummies are used as exclusion restrictions), Columns 1 and 2 assume education is exogenous, while column 3 and 4 allow for the endogeneity of schooling. All specifications control for individual characteristics. Columns 2 and 4 also control for firm characteristics. None of the selection terms are individually or jointly significant in any of the specifications. In addition, resulting parameter estimates are very similar to OLS estimates. This indicates that endogeneity is not a major issue. Once again, the estimated return to program participation is higher for the subsample of observations for whom information on capital stock, input usage and size of the labor force is available (see columns 2 and 4). In addition, we can reject the null hypothesis of a homogeneous treatment effect for this subsample. Finally it should be noted that there is a positive association between firm size and wages.

In sum, the estimated program premium is rather robust and endogeneity is not of major empirical importance. The estimated premium is highest for the poorest workers. As a robustness check to test whether the IHDP indeed has had an equity enhancing impact on the earnings distribution quantile regressions were estimated. These regressions are presented in tables 10A and 10B and confirm that the program premium is highest for those at the bottom of the earnings distribution.

# **6. Summary and Conclusions**

Active labor market programs, such as the AAIHDP, are widely viewed as a means to provide employment opportunities for the poor by providing more, relatively unskilled, jobs. To do that they must either use a more unskilled labor intensive technology or use more unskilled labor per unit of capital for a given technology. We have found that the technology of program firms is not significantly different from the technology used by firms outside the program, a conclusion which is robust to controlling for selection bias and endogeneity of factor inputs. Program firms are not more labor intensive and use more skilled labor than non-program firms.

We find there is an earnings premium associated with program participation which is heterogeneous and inversely related to educational attainment. It is unlikely to be driven by selection bias. It may reflect the fact that workers in program firms are often also the owners of such firms enables them to capture the return to capital. If this is the explanation then there is not a premium to labor for those participating in the program.

Given that the program has not altered technology or labor-intensity it is unlikely to have resulted in a higher level of labor demand than would have been generated had contracts been awarded to existing firms. Given the existence of excess demand and shortages of key construction inputs it is possible that the AAIHDP has led to some crowding out. The data at our disposal do not enable us to assess such general equilibrium effects quantitatively. These are an area for future research, as are the many dynamic issues that we could not explore.

# **References**

Ackerberg, D., Benkard, L., Berry, S., & Pakes, A. (forthcoming) Econometric Tools for Analyzing Market Outcomes, Forthcoming chapter in Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 6.

Ackerberg, D., Caves, K. & Frazer, G. (2005) "Structural Identification of Production Functions" University of Colorado Working Paper.

Betcherman, G., Olivas, K. & Dar, A. (2004) "Impacts of Active Labor Market Programs: New Evidence from Evaluations with Particular Attention to Developing and Transition Countries" Social variable because variation in days worked among permanent workers is small. The implied age-earnings profile is anomalous but insignificant. The other coefficient estimates are rather stable.

-9-
Protection Discussion Paper Series No. 0402.

Biesebroeck, Van, J. (2005) “Firm Size Matters: Growth and Productivity Growth in African Manufacturing”, _Economic Development and Cultural Change_ , Vol. 53(3).

Biggs, T. (2002) "Is Small and Beautiful Worthy of Subsidy?", IFC Discussion Paper.

Bigsten, A & Gebreeyesus, M. (2007) “The Small, the Young and the Productive: Determinants of Manufacturing Firm Growth in Ethiopia” _Economic Development and Cultural Change_ , Vol 55(4).

Blundell, R.& Costa Dias, M. (2002) "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics" CEMMAP Working Paper, CWP 10/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies Bourguignon, F., Fournier, M. & Gurgand, M. (2007) "Selection Bias Corrections Based on the Multinomial Logit Model: Monte Carlo Comparisons" _Journal of Economic Surveys_ , Vol 21, No. 1.

Card, D. (2001) "Estimating the Returns to Schooling: Evidence on Some Persistent Econometric Problems.", _Econometrica_ , Vol. 69(5).

Dar, A. & Tzannatos, Z.P (1999) “Active Labor Market Programs: A Review of the Evidence from Evaluations” World Bank Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 9901.

Fretwell, D., Benus, J. & O’Leary, C. (1999) “Evaluating the Impact of Active Labor Market Programs: Results of Cross Country Studies in Europe and Asia” World Bank Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 9915.

Global Development Solutions (2006) "Integrated Value Chain Analysis for the Housing Construction Sector in Ethiopia" Halberg, K. (2001) "A market-oriented strategy for small and medium-scale enterprises." Discussion Paper No. 40. International Finance Corporation.

HDPO (2004) "Brief Project Profile", mimeo.

Lee, J. (1983) "Generalized Econometric Models with Selectivity" _Econometrica_ , Vol. 51, No 3.

Söderbom, M., Teal, F., Wambugu, A. & Kahyarara, G. (2005) "The Dynamics of Returns to Education in Kenyan and Tanzanian Manufacturing" GPRG Discussion Paper GPRG-WPS-017. World Bank (2004) "Land and Housing in Addis", mimeo.

World Bank (2007) "The Addis Ababa Integrated Housing Program - Background Paper to a survey of firms and workers in the construction sector in Addis", mimeo.

(no author) (2004) "Addis Ababa Integrated Housing Development Program", mimeo.

(no author) (2005) "Low Cost Housing: Would This Be the Solution?" Construction Ahead: Bimonthly interface with the construction industry September-October.

(no author) (2007) "Mugher Cement Enterprise Increases Cement Price" Addis Fortune: accessed January 5, 2007 via: http://www.docengines.com

-10-
# **TABLES AND GRAPHS**

# **Graph 1: Capital Intensity vs Firm Size**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Capital Intensity vs Firm Size<br>0 2 4 6 8<br>Workers (log)<br>Non-Program Constructor Program Constructor<br>Non-Program Contractor Program Contractor<br>12<br>10<br>8<br>6<br>Capital per worker (log)<br>4<br><!-- End of picture text -->

**Graph 2: Input  Intensity vs Firm Size**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Input Intensity vs Firm Size<br>0 2 4 6 8<br>Workers (log)<br>Non-Program Constructor Program Constructor<br>Non-Program Contractor Program Contractor<br>14<br>12<br>10<br>8<br>Inputs per worker (log)<br>6<br>4<br><!-- End of picture text -->

-11-
|**Table 1: Descriptive**|**Statistics Fir**<br>**Non-Prog**<br>**Construc**|**ms**<br>**ram**<br>**tor**|**Progra**<br>**Construc**|**m**<br>**tor**|**Non-Prog**<br>**Contrac**|**ram**<br>**tor**|**Progr**<br>**Contra**|**am**<br>**ctor**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**mean**|**sd**|**mean**|**sd**|**mean**|**sd**|**mean**|**sd**|
|Firm-age|3.78|4.33|2.27|1.80|6.95|4.90|6.65|6.00|
|**_Revenue_**|||||||||
|Revenue (log)|11.56|1.39|11.94|1.26|13.92|1.59|14.30|1.59|
|**_Factors_**|||||||||
|Workers (log)|1.86|0.68|2.56|0.62|3.09|1.48|3.33|1.37|
|Capital (log)|9.97|2.26|10.71|1.51|12.39|2.06|12.97|1.80|
|Inputs(log)|10.94|1.64|11.37|1.65|13.30|1.44|13.95|1.48|
|Capital per worker|8.11|2.14|8.15|1.46|9.30|1.99|9.65|1.87|
|(log)|||||||||
|**_Labor intensity_**|||||||||
|<br>Inputs per|9.09|1.62|8.81|1.50|10.20|1.33|10.62|1.25|
|worker(log)|||||||||
|<br>Education of the|7.65|2.86|9.51|2.76|8.77|2.92|9.27|2.75|
|workforce (years)|||||||||
|<br>**_Characteristics of the_**|**_workforce_**||||||||
|Age of the|29.68|7.70|28.52|6.49|27.37|6.68|26.96|6.36|
|workforce|||||||||
|Labor force at|1.49|0.87|2.40|0.84|1.92|1.60|2.83|1.25|
|startup (log)|||||||||
|**_Price Deflators_**|||||||||
|<br>Output price deflator|1.11|0.46|0.97|0.36|1.06|0.41|1.08|0.34|
|Input price deflator|1.01|0.45|1.03|0.40|0.93|0.41|0.91|0.33|
|<br>Complete|78||70||9||13||
|observations|||||||||

Note: All monetary measures in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). 1 USD dollar is worth approximately 9.1 Ethiopian Birr (ETB)

-12-
**Table 2: Explaining Capital Intensity  - OLS**

Dependent <u>variable: Log of Capital per worker</u>

||(1)|(2)|(3)|
|---|---|---|---|
|Workers(log)|0.141|0.140|-0.213|
||(0.12)|(0.12)|(0.14)|
|Program-dummie||0.006|0.122|
|||(0.27)|(0.26)|
|Contractor|||1.766***|
||||(0.35)|
|Constant|8.084***|8.083***|8.546***|
||(0.31)|(0.31)|(0.31)|
|N|222|222|222|
|R2|0.007|0.007|0.108|
|Adjusted R2|0.002|-0.002|0.096|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

**Table 3: Explaining Input-Intensity - OLS**

Dependent <u>variable: Log of Input per worker</u>

||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Workers(log)|-0.135|-0.359**|-0.346**|-0.283*|
||(0.13)|(0.14)|(0.14)|(0.15)|
|Program-Non-Contractor|||-0.145||
||||(0.26)||
|Program-Contractor|||0.536||
||||(0.63)||
|Contractor||1.901***|1.502***|1.586***|
|||(0.36)|(0.53)|(0.38)|
|Capital-Labor-Ratio||||0.201***<br>(0.06)|
|Program-dummie||-0.049||-0.097|
|||(0.25)||(0.25)|
|Constant|9.459***|9.750***|9.767***|7.955***|
||(0.32)|(0.30)|(0.30)|(0.62)|
|N|185|185|185|175|
|R2|0.006|0.143|0.148|0.186|
|Adjusted R2|0.0005|0.129|0.129|0.166|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-13-
|**Table 4: Production Functions - OLS**<br>Dependent variable:Log ofannual revenue <br>**All**|**Constructors**|**Constructors**|
|---|---|---|
|(1)|(2)|(3)|
|_Factors_|||
|Workers(log)<br>0.121|0.210|0.223|
|(0.12)|(0.17)|(0.17)|
|Capital(log)<br>0.046<br>|0.046<br>|0.041<br>|
|(0.04)|(0.05)|(0.05)|
|<br>Inputs(log)<br>.596***|<br>.597***|<br>.595***|
|(0.05)|(0.07)|(0.07)|
|_Activity Dummies_|||
|PCB<br>0.234|0.351|0.333|
|(0.21)|(0.25)|(0.25)|
|HCB<br>-0.068|0.054|0.085|
|(0.16)|(0.20)|(0.20)|
|Gravel<br>1.001**|1.174**|1.215|
|(0.46)|(0.52)|(0.52)|
|Wood<br>0.046|0.128|0.137|
|(0.17)|(0.20)|(0.20)|
|<br>Wall<br>-0.079|<br>0.040|<br>0.052|
|(0.26)|(0.35)|(0.35)|
|Structural<br>0.468|0.375|0.367|
|(0.42)|(1.18)|(1.19)|
|Electrical<br>-0.357|-0.279|-0.291|
|(0.36)|(0.45)|(0.45)|
|Sanitary<br>.559*|0.563|0.550|
|<br>(0.32)|(0.37)|(0.37)|
|Finishing<br>0.097|0.060|-0.007|
|(0.30)|(0.41)|(0.41)|
|<br>Other<br>0.270|<br>0.271|<br>0.320|
|(0.27)|(0.31)|(0.32)|
|Production-inputs<br>0.178<br>|0.279<br>|0.297<br>|
|(0.24)|(0.28)|(0.29)|
|_Interaction Terms_|||
|Large-Contractor<br>-2.522**|||
|<br>(1.26)|||
|Contractor*Workers<br>0.104|||
|(0.18)|||
|<br>Contractor*Capital<br>.222**|||
|(0.11)|||
|<br>Program-dummie|0.883|0.682|
||(1.16)|(1.19)|
|Program*Workers|-0.233|-0.219|
||(0.26)<br>|(0.26)<br>|
|Program*Capital|-0.040|-0.029|
||(0.10)|(0.10)|
|Program*Inputs|-0.002|-0.002|
||(0.10)|(0.10)|
|_Human Capital_|||
|<br>Education of the Workforce||0028|
|||.<br>(0.03)|
|Age of the Workforce||<br>0.00002|
|||(0.02)|
|Constant<br>4.245***|3.982***|<br>3.789***|
|(0.54)|(0.74)|(0.90)|
|<br>N<br>170|<br>148|<br>148|
|R2<br>0.775|0.669|0.672|
|Adjusted R2<br>0.75|0.623|0.62|

-14-
Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

|**Table 5: Production Functions – In**<br>Dependent variable:Log ofannual re|**strumental Va**<br>venue<br>(1)|**riable Estim**<br>(2)|**ation, Constr**<br>(3)|**uctors only**<br>(4)|(5)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**_Factors_**||||||
|Capital-per-worker (log)|0.035|0.049|0.090|0.035|0.042|
||(0.04)|(0.04)|(0.07)|(0.04)|(0.09)|
|Inputs-per-worker (log)|0.73***|0.596***|0.467***|0.708***|0.962***|
||(0.17)|(0.05)|(0.11)|(0.18)|(0.31)|
|**_The Impact of the program_**||||||
|Program-Dummie||-0.489|-2.017|-0.396|5.215|
|||(0.55)|(1.88)|(0.59)|(3.52)|
|Program-capital-per-worker (log)|||-0.178||0.008|
||||(0.26)||(0.34)|
|Program-Inputs-per-Worker (log)|||0.305||-0.674|
||||(020)||(049)|
|**_Activities_**|||.||.|
|PCB|0.032|0.323|0.451|0.229|0.551|
||(0.22)|(0.33)|(0.58)|(0.38)|(0.60)|
|HCB|-0.184|-0.037|-0.032|-0.147|-0.105|
||(0.24)|(0.19)|(0.20)|(0.25)|(0.29)|
|Gravel|0.978*|0.827*|1.29**|1.04*|0.364|
||(0.56)|(0.47)|(0.65)|(0.56)|(1.05)|
|Wood|0.068|0.094|0.059|0.116|0.172|
||(0.19)|(0.20)|(0.22)|(0.20)|(0.24)|
|Wall|0.018|0.043|0.275|0.087|0.013|
||(0.34)|(0.34)|(0.51)|(0.35)|(0.63)|
|Structural|-0.013|0.130|0.315|0.001|0.056|
||(1.17)|(1.13)|(1.25)|(1.16)|(1.37)|
|Electrical|<br>-0.303|<br>-0.272|<br>-0.265|<br>-0.283|<br>-0.383|
||(0.43)|(0.43)|(0.47)|(0.43)|(0.51)|
|Sanitary|0.563|0.460|0.308|0.564|0.700|
||(0.39)|(0.35)|(0.40)|(0.39)|(0.50)|
|Finishing|<br>0.041|<br>-0.048|<br>-0.138|<br>-0.015|<br>-0.041|
||(0.40)|(0.39)|(0.46)|(0.40)|(0.50)|
|Production-inputs|0.094|0.106|0.117|-0.030|-0.430|
||(0.36)|(0.35)|(0.54)|(0.39)|(0.62)|
|Other|0.291|0.260|0.090|0.224|0.327|
||(0.30)|(0.31)|(0.41)|(0.32)|(0.51)|
|Constant|2.695***|3.912***|4.859***|3.038**|0.833**|
||(1.32)|(0.54)|(0.94)|(1.46)|(2.60)|
|**_Endogenous_**||||||
|Inputs per worker|Yes|||Yes|Yes|
|Program Dummy||Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|Program*inputs per worker|||Yes||Yes|
|Program*capital per worker|||Yes||Yes|
|**_Instruments Included_**||||||
|Input Price|Yes|||Yes|Yes|
|Labor force at startup||Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|Lab force at start*inputspw|||Yes||Yes|
|Lab force at start*capitalpw|||Yes||Yes|
|<br>Lab force at start*Input Price|||||Yes|
|<br>Anderson LR|13.95|13.03|4.55|8.67|3.35|
|Cragg-Donald F|13.24|12.23|1.36|4.01|0.749|
|<br>N|148|148|148|148|148|
|Hausman Chi(2) (df )|0.77(13)|0.39 (14)|4.50 (16)|0.96(14)|3.96(14)|
|<br>Prob Chi(2)|<br>1.00|<br>1.00|<br>0.99|<br>1.00|<br>0.99|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-15-
|**Table 6: Descriptive Statistics**|**Workers**||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Non-Progr**<br>**Construct**|**am**<br>**or**|**Progr**<br>**Constru**|**am**<br>**ctor**|**Non-Pro**<br>**Contra**|**gram**<br>**ctor**|**Prog**<br>**Contr**|**ram**<br>**actor**|
||**mean**|**Sd**|**mean**|**Sd**|**Mean**|**Sd**|**Mean**|**Sd**|
|Age|28.62|8.63|28.65|6.85|30.51|7.61|27.62|6.41|
|Sex|0.81|0.40|0.85|0.36|0.86|0.35|0.77|0.42|
|Monthly pay(log)|5.77|0.76|6.12|0.84|6.52|1.00|6.42|1.01|
|Days worked per month(log)|3.05|0.40|3.09|0.34|3.01|0.49|3.13|0.27|
|<br>casualdummie|0.23|0.42|0.22|0.42|0.27|0.45|0.29|0.46|
|**_(Highest level of ) Educational_**|**_Attainment_**||||||||
|Years of schooling|8.64|4.31|10.33|3.79|10.88|3.36|10.26|4.36|
|<br>Primary|0.43|0.50|0.31|0.46|0.24|0.43|0.33|0.48|
|Secondary|0.47|0.50|0.65|0.48|0.67|0.47|0.59|0.50|
|College|0.01|0.08|0.01|0.09|0.02|0.14|0.03|0.17|
|<br>TVETcomplete|0.15|0.35|0.35|0.48|0.27|0.45|0.39|0.49|
|**_Entire Employment History_**|||||||||
|<br>Apprenticeship completed in|0.25|0.44|0.46|0.50|0.35|0.48|0.39|0.49|
|the past|||||||||
|<br>Goverment employee|0.10|0.30|0.18|0.38|0.22|0.42|0.20|0.40|
|employee in a firm|0.42|0.49|0.44|0.50|0.51|0.51|0.44|0.50|
|<br>Domestic employee|0.06|0.23|0.09|0.29|0.12|0.33|0.15|0.36|
|Family worker|0.03|0.17|0.03|0.17|0.00|0.00|0.05|0.21|
|<br>Self-employed|0.07|0.26|0.06|0.24|0.08|0.28|0.05|0.21|
|<br>Employed in a cooperative|0.02|0.14|0.14|0.34|0.04|0.20|0.08|0.27|
|Casual workers|0.12|0.33|0.09|0.29|0.08|0.28|0.03|0.17|
|**_Prior Activity_**|||||||||
|<br>Unemployed|0.20|0.40|0.17|0.38|0.14|0.35|0.21|0.41|
|<br>Employee in a firm|0.25|0.43|0.31|0.46|0.41|0.50|0.36|0.48|
|Self employed|0.06|0.24|0.07|0.25|0.10|0.31|0.01|0.12|
|Casual workers|0.16|0.37|0.22|0.42|0.06|0.24|0.18|0.39|
|Student|0.22|0.41|0.16|0.37|0.24|0.43|0.15|0.36|
|Government Employee|0.04|0.21|0.04|0.19|0.02|0.14|0.07|0.26|
|<br>Inactive|0.01|0.08|0.00|0.00|0.02|0.14|0.00|0.00|
|**_Instruments for educational at_**|**_tainment_**||||||||
|<br>Distance to school (log)|<br>3.34|0.75|3.19|0.71|3.20|0.65|3.12|0.66|
|<br>Father was a farmer|0.37|0.48|0.24|0.43|0.20|0.41|0.32|0.47|
|Father was a civil servant|0.21|0.41|0.32|0.47|0.31|0.47|0.30|0.46|
|Mother was a farmer|0.15|0.36|0.11|0.31|0.10|0.31|0.06|0.24|
|Mother was a housewife|0.64|0.48|0.62|0.49|0.61|0.49|0.68|0.47|
|Complete observations|310||224||48||64||

Note: All monetary measures in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). 1 USD dollar is worth approximately 9.1 Ethiopian Birr (ETB)

-16-
|**Table 7: Being Hired**<br>Dependent variable: w|**by a Progra**<br>orkingina p<br>(1)|**m Firm: Prob**<br>rogram firm<br>(2)|**it Selection M**<br>(3)|**odels**<br>(4)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Age|<br>0.00|<br>0.00|<br>0.00|<br>0.00|
||0.00|0.00|0.00|0.00|
|Primary|0.19|0.22|0.18|0.20|
||(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.10)|(0.10)|
|Secondary|0.19*|0.23*|0.18|0.21*|
||(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.10)|(0.10)|
|College|0.25|0.26|0.19|0.22|
||(0.19)|(0.19)|(0.22)|(0.22)|
|TVET|0.19***|0.22**|0.19***|0.21***|
||(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.06)|(0.06)|
|Sex|0.00|0.00|0.01|0.00|
||(0.05)|(0.06)|(0.06)|(0.06)|
|Apprenticeship<br>|0.17|0.15|0.16|0.15|
|completed|||||
||(0.04)|(0.04)|(0.05)|(0.05)|
|**_Activity Prior to Curre_**|**_nt Job_**||||
|-unemployed||0.15||0.14|
|||(0.12)||(0.12)|
|-employee||0.12||0.14|
|||(0.11)||(0.12)|
|-self-employed||0.03||0.13|
|||(0.14)||(0.17)|
|-casual||0.21||0.27|
|||(0.11)||(0.11)|
|-student||-0.03||0.07|
|||(0.12)||(0.12)|
|**_Employment History_**|||||
|-unemployment|||0.21***|0.20***|
||||(0.04)|(0.05)|
|-government|||0.13|0.10|
||||(0.06)|(0.07)|
|-employee|||-0.01|-0.05|
||||(0.04)|(0.06)|
|-domestic|||0.20|0.17*|
||||(0.07)|(0.08)|
|-family worker|||0.10|0.11|
||||(0.13)|(0.13)|
|-self-employed|||-0.09|-0.08|
||||(0.09)|(0.12)|
|-cooperative|||0.32***|0.31***|
||||(0.08)|(0.08)|
|-casual|||-0.13|-0.17|
||||(0.07)|(0.07)|
|N|661|658|<br>661|<br>658|
|LR Chi2|101.6(17)|110.44(23)|153.69(25)|161.12(25)|
|Pseudo R2|0.1109|0.1282|0.1686|0.1774|

Note:

-*, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-Marginal effects, evaluated at the mean

-17-
|**Table 8: Earnings Regr**<br>Dependent variable:log|**essions - OLS**<br> of monthly ear<br>(1)|nings<br>(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Days per month (log)|0.525***|0.519***|0.522***|0.542***|-0.208|-0.209|-0.230|
||(0.10)|(0.10)|(0.104)|(0.11)|(0.28)|(0.28)|(0.28)|
|CasualDummie|-0.377***|-0.385***|-0.384***|-0.425***|-0.412|-0.381|-0.413|
||(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.073)|(0.10)|(0.26)|(0.26)|(0.26)|
|Age|<br>0.005|<br>0.002|<br>0.004|<br>0.0009|<br>-0.017|<br>-0.021|<br>-0.020|
||(0.02)|(0.02)|(0.026)|(0.02)|(0.03)|(0.03)|(0.03)|
|AgeSquared|0.007|0.010|0.006|0.011|0.035|0.039|0.039|
||(0.03)|(0.03)|(0.038)|(0.03)|(0.04)|(0.04)|(0.04)|
|Sex|<br>0.383***|<br>0.398***|<br>0.399***|<br>0.403***|<br>0.359***|<br>0.354***|<br>0.373***|
||(0.08)|(0.09)|(0.084)|(0.09)|(0.11)|(0.11)|(0.11)|
|Schooling|<br>-2.60e-06|<br>-0.020|<br>-0.021|<br>-0.008|<br>0.016|<br>0.014|<br>0.015|
||(0.03)|(0.04)|(0.055)|(0.04)|(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.05)|
|Schooling2|<br>0.002|<br>0.004*|<br>0.004|<br>0.004|<br>0.003|<br>0.003|<br>0.003|
||(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.003)|(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|
|Program*Schooling||0.022|0.057|0.003|-0.079|-0.079|-0.078|
|||(0.07)|(0.114)|(0.07)|(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.09)|
|Program*Schooling2||-0.003|-0.005|-0.002|0.0009|0.001|0.0008|
|||(0.00)|(0.005)|(0.00)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|
|Prior-Casualwork|0.214**|<br>0.213**|<br>0.213**|<br>0.243***|<br>0.305***|<br>0.298***|<br>0.301***|
||(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.099)|(0.09)|(0.12)|(0.12)|(0.12)|
|Prior-employee firm|0.219***|0.216***|0.218***|0.221***|0.147|0.147|0.147|
||(0.07)|(0.07)|(0.076)|(0.07)|(0.09)|(0.10)|(0.09)|
|Appr. in the past|<br>0.085|<br>0.085|<br>0.086|<br>0.084|<br>0.135|<br>0.156*|<br>0.153|
||(0.07)|(0.07)|(0.065)|(0.07)|(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.09)|
|v|||0.005|||||
||||(0.025)|||||
|v2|||<br>0.000|||||
||||(0.004)|||||
|v*program|||0.003|||||
||||(0.040)|||||
|v2*program|||0.003|||||
||||(0006)|||||
|Contractor|0.711***|0.685***|.<br>0.685***|0.668***|0.716***|0.79***|0.653***|
||(0.13)|(0.13)<br>|(0.136)<br>|(0.14)|(0.21)<br>|(0.20)<br>|(0.22)<br>|
|Program*Contractor|-0.204|-0.076|-0.250|-0.002|0.554|0.536|0.540|
||(0.15)|(0.34)|(0.637)|(0.35)|(0.48)|(0.48)|(0.48)|
|Program-Constructor|<br>0.255***|<br>0.348|<br>0.188|<br>0.417|<br>0.849*|<br>0.915**|<br>0.861*|
||(0.07)|(0.31)|(0.608)|(0.32)|(0.45)|(0.45)|(0.45)|
|Workers||||<br>0.024|<br>0.085||<br>0.103*|
|||||(0.04)|(0.05)||(0.05)|
|Capital-Intensity||||||-0.008|-0.008|
|||||||(002)|(002)|
|Input-Intensity||||||.<br>0040|.<br>005*|
|||||||.<br>(0.03)|.<br>(0.03)|
|Constant|2.955***|3.028***|2.997***|2.857***|5.402***|<br>5.334***|<br>5.07***|
||(0.52)|(0.53)|(0.59)|(0.54)|(1.01)|(1.03)|(1.04)|
|N|<br>550|<br>550|<br>550|<br>536|<br>345|<br>345|<br>345|
|R2|0.353|0.357|0.358|0.367|0.26|0.259|0.268|
|Adjusted R2|0.325|0.327|0.322|0.334|0.199|0.196|0.203|

Note:

- Subcity dummies included but not reported

- Hausman test of endogeneity for column 3: Chi2(24)=0.72

- V is the residual from the education model

- Standard errors in column 3 bootstrapped.

- *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-18-
|**Table 9: Earnings Regressi**<br>Dependent variable:Log of m|**ons - Lee Selecti**<br> onthly earnings<br>(1)|**on Correctio**<br>(2)|**ns**<br>(3)|(4)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Days per month (log)|0.519***|-0.263|0.518***|-0.265|
||(0.132)|(0.28)|(0.11)|(0.28)|
|CasualDummie|<br>-0.385***|<br>-0.409|<br>-0.386***|<br>-0.405|
||(0.069)|(0.26)|(0.09)|(0.26)|
|Age|0.002|-0.019|0.005|-0.007|
||(0.022)|(0.03)|(0.02)|(0.03)|
|AgeSquared|0.010<br>|0.037<br>|0.005<br>|0.021<br>|
||(0.031)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.04)|
|Sex|<br>0.398***|<br>0.366***|<br>0.401***|<br>0.371***|
||(0.069)|(0.11)|(0.09)|(0.11)|
|Schooling|-0.020|0.015|-0.013|0.013|
||(0.043)|(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.07)|
|Schooling2|<br>0.004|<br>0.003|<br>0.004|<br>0.002|
||(0.003)|(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|
|Prog*Schooling|0.022|-0.077|0.034|-0.057|
||(0.081)|(0.09)|(0.07)|(0.09)|
|Prog*Schooling2|-0.003|0.0009|-0.004|-0.0003|
||(0.004)|(0.01)|(0.00)|(0.01)|
|Prior-Casualwork|0.213**|0.305***|0.21**|0.299***|
||(0.102)|(0.12)|(0.09)|(0.12)|
|Prior-employee firm|<br>0.216***|<br>0.153|<br>0.214***|<br>0.146|
||(0.068)|(0.09)|(0.07)|(0.10)|
|ApprenticeshipCompleted|0.084|0.142|0.086|0.15*|
||(0.065)|(0.09)|(0.07)|(0.09)|
|Contractor|0.347|0.452*|0.676***|0.469*|
||(0.382)|(0.26)|(0.17)|(0.26)|
|Program-Contractor|0.681***|0.499|-0.130|0.396|
||(0.163)|(0.48)|(0.36)|(0.49)|
|Program-Constructor|-0.077|0.781*|0.316|0.719|
||(0.428)|(0.45)|(0.32)|(0.46)|
|Workers||0.115**||0.11**|
|||(0.06)||(0.06)|
|Capital-Intensity||-0.002||-0.002|
|||(0.02)||(0.02)|
|Input-Intensity||<br>0.045||<br>0.044|
|||(0.03)||(0.03)|
|Lee|0.005|0.265|-0.032|0.216|
||(0.144)|(0.20)|(0.15)|(0.21)|
|V|||<br>-0.003|<br>0.026|
||||(0.04)|(0.05)|
|V2|||-0.003|-0.003|
||||(0.01)|(0.01)|
|VLee|||0.009|-0.006|
||||(0.03)|(0.04)|
|V2Lee|||<br>0.005|<br>0.005|
||||(0.01)|(0.01)|
|Constant|3026***|4994***|3001***|4937***|
||.<br>(0.611)|.<br>(1.04)|.<br>(0.58)|.<br>(1.06)|
|N|<br>0.357|<br>345|<br>550|<br>345|
|R2|550|0.272|0.359|0.275|
|Adjusted R2|0.325|0.205|0.322|0.198|

Note:

- Subcity dummies included but not reported

- V is the residual from the education model

- Bootstrapped standard errors

- *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-19-
**Table 10A: Quantile Regressions - No Firm Controls** Dependent variable: Log of monthly earnings

||p10|p25|p50|p75|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|
|Days per month (log)|0.641***|0.669***|0.562***|0.373***|
||(0.14)|(0.07)|(0.08)|(0.07)|
|Casual Dummie|-0.354***|-0.348***|-0.317***|-0.230***|
||(0.12)|(0.06)|(0.07)|(0.07)|
|Age|0.010|0.006|0.010|-0.043***|
||(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|
|Age Squared|-0.002|0.001|-0.009|0.077***|
||(0.03)|(0.02)|(0.02)|(0.02)|
|Sex|0.39***|0.369***|0.359***|0.299***|
||(0.11)|(0.06)|(0.06)|(0.06)|
|Schooling|0.073**|0.079***|-0.500**|-0.021|
||(0.03)|(0.02)|(0.02)|(0.02)|
|Schooling2|-0.002|-0.002*|0.005***|0.004***|
||(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|
|Prior-Casualwork|0.150|0.071|0.011|0.160|
||(0.12)|(0.06)|(0.07)|(0.06)|
|Prior-employee firm|0.155|0.084*|0.135**|0.296***|
||(0.11)|(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.05)|
|Apprenticeship Completed|0.049|0.108**|0.045|0.041|
||(0.10)|(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.05)|
|Contractor|0.681***|0.654***|0.647***|0.645***|
||(0.18)|(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.09)|
|Program-Contractor|-0.172|-0.148|-0.289|-0.188|
||(0.22)|(0.10)|(0.11)|(0.11)|
|Program-Constructor|0.265***|0.21***|0.147***|0.193***|
||(0.10)|(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.05)|
|Constant|1.42**|2.017***|3.411***|4.842***|
||(0.69)|(0.36)|(0.37)|(0.34)|
|Pseudo R2|0.32|0.21|0.17|0.23|
|N|550|550|550|550|

Note:

- *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

- Subcity dummies included but not reported

-20-
|**Table 10B: Quantile Regress**<br>Dependent variable: Logof m|**ions with Firm**<br>onthlyrevenue<br>p10|**Controls**<br>p25|p50|p75|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|
|Days per month (log)|0.107|-0.078|-0.107|-0.023|
||(0.16)|(0.29)|(0.23)|(0.17)|
|CasualDummie|-0.031|-0.214|-0.236|-0.124|
||(0.09)|(0.32)|(0.26)|(0.19)|
|Age|0.019|0.015|0.007|-0.045**|
||(0.02)|(0.03)|(0.03)|(0.02)|
|AgeSquared|-0.006|-0.011|-0.001|0.077***|
||(0.02)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.03)|
|Sex|0.325***|0.334**|0.346***|0.278***|
||(0.08)|(0.14)|(0.11)|(0.10)|
|Schooling|0.124***|0.038|-0.019|-0.014|
||(0.02)|(0.05)|(0.04)|(0.03)|
|Schooling2|-0.004***|0.0001|0.003|0.003|
||(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|(0.00)|
|Prior-Casualwork|0.038|0.057|0.112|0.201*|
||(0.08)|(0.16)|(0.12)|(0.11)|
|Prior-employee firm|0.081|0.077|0.012|0.233**|
||(0.07)|(0.12)|(0.10)|(0.09)|
|Apprenticeship Completed|0.001|0.022|0.063|0.165**|
||(0.07)|(0.12)|(0.09)|(0.08)|
|Contractor|0.686***|0.310|0.302|0.554***|
||(0.10)|(0.24)|(0.22)|(0.21)|
|Program*Contractor|-0.231*|-0.201|-0.186|-0.113|
||(0.14)|(0.28)|(0.24)|(0.23)|
|Program-Constructor|0.172**|-0.030|-0.029|0.009|
||(0.08)|(0.13)|(0.11)|(0.10)|
|Workers|0.067*|0.166***|0.141**|0.097*|
||(0.04)|(0.06)|(0.06)|(0.06)|
|Capital-Intensity|0.029**|0.036|0.019|0.006|
||(0.01)|(0.03)|(0.02)|(0.02)|
|Input-Intensity|0.027|0.077**|0.035|0.038|
||(0.02)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.03)|
|Constant|2.087***|3.455***|4.838***|5.579***|
||(0.69)|(1.12)|(0.87)|(0.68)|
|Pseudo R2|0.22|0.14|0.15|0.21|
|N|345|345|345|345|

Note:

- *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

- Subcity dummies included but not reported

-21-
# **APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL TABLES**

|**Table A1.1: Firs**|**t Stage- IV- Co**|**lumns 1 to 3**||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Column in IV**|**1**|**2**|**3**|**3**|**3**|
|Dependent<br>Variable:|**Inputs per**<br>**worker**|**Program**<br>**Dummy**|**Program**<br>**dummy**|**prog***<br>**inputs per**<br>**worker**|**Prog*capital**<br>**per worker**|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|
|**_Factors_**||||||
|Capital-per-|0.152**|-0.015|0.033|0.204|0.116|
|worker||||||
||(0.06)|(0.02)|(0.04)|(0.36)|(0.33)|
|Inputs-per-||0.026|0.072|0.545|0.414|
|worker||||||
|||(0.03)|(0.06)|(0.49)|(0.46)|
|**_Activities_**||||||
|PCB|0.472|0.314***|0.354***|3.267***|3.298***|
||(0.33)|(0.12)|(0.12)|(1.06)|(0.99)|
|HCB|0.89***|-0.035|-0.026|-0.276|-0.219|
||(0.29)|(0.10)|(0.10)|(0.88)|(0.83)|
|Gravel|<br>-2.120***|<br>0.129|<br>0.127|<br>1.147|<br>1.540|
||(0.68)|(0.23)|(0.26)|(2.28)|(2.15)|
|Wood|-0.306|0.198**|0.182*|1.666*|1.149|
||(0.30)|(0.10)|(0.10)|(0.86)|(0.81)|
|Wall|<br>-0.540|<br>0.091|<br>0.086|<br>0.914|<br>1.622|
||(0.51)|(0.17)|(0.17)|(1.52)|(1.43)|
|Structural|<br>0.875|<br>0.028|<br>0.053|<br>0.354|<br>1.199|
||(1.83)|(0.59)|(0.59)|(5.23)|(4.92)|
|Electrical|0.152|0.049|0.028|0.216|0.018|
||(0.69)|(0.22)|(0.22)|(1.98)|(1.86)|
|Sanitary|-0.908|0.024|0.049|0.492|-0.176|
||(0.56)|(0.18)|(0.18)|(1.63)|(1.54)|
|Finishing|-0.101|-0.133|-0.134|-1.163|-1.312|
||(0.63)|(0.20)|(0.20)|(1.79)|(1.69)|
|Production-|0.522|-0.307**|-0.334**|-3.237***|-3.081***|
|inputs||||||
||(0.47)|(0.14)|(0.14)|(1.24)|(1.16)|
|Other|1.472***|-0.159|-0.150|-1.370|-1.606|
||(0.39)|(0.15)|(0.15)|(1.35)|(1.27)|
|**_Instruments_**||||||
|Labor-at-start|0.121***|0.164***|0.581*|2.186|1.682|
||(0.03)|(0.05)|(0.28)|(2.52)|(2.37)|
|Labor-at-|||-0.023|0.094|-0.104|
|start*capital||||||
||||(0.03)|(0.24)|(0.22)|
|Labor-at-|||-0.028|-0.215|0.028|
|start*inputs||||||
||||(0.02)|(0.20)|(0.19)|
|Constant|7.063***|-0.005|<br>-0.760|<br>-5.168|<br>-2.951|
||(0.55)|(0.28)|(0.59)|(5.24)|(4.93)|
|N|148|148|148|148|148|
|R2|0.381|0.387|0.398|0.414|0.395|
|Adjusted R2|0.321|0.322|0.325|0.342|0.321|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-22-
|**Table A1.2: First Sta**|**ge- IV- Column**|**s 4 and 5**|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Column in IV**|**4**|**4**|**5**|**5**|**5**|**5**|
|Dependent variable:|**Inputs per**<br>**worker**|**Program**<br>**Dummie**|**Inputspw**|**Program**<br>**dummy**|**prog*inputspw**|**prog*capitalw**|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|**_Factors_**|||||||
|Capital-per-worker|0.153**|-0.011|0.033|0.022|0.147|0.018|
||(0.06)|(0.02)|(0.13)|(0.04)|(0.37)|(0.33)|
|**_Activities_**|||||||
|PCB|0.529|0.329***|0.463|0.278**|3.637***|2.775***|
||(0.36)|(0.12)|(0.37)|(0.11)|(1.07)|(0.93)|
|HCB|0.912***|-0.009|0.848***|-0.045|0.245|-0.399|
||(0.30)|(0.10)|(0.30)|(0.09)|(0.87)|(0.72)|
|Gravel|-2.044**|0.080|-2.162***|0.281*|-0.676|2.649*|
||(0.71)|(0.23)|(0.72)|(0.17)|(2.10)|(1.40)|
|Wood|-0.326|0.189**|-0.264|0.149*|1.547*|0.995|
||(0.30)|(0.10)|(0.30)|(0.09)|(0.88)|(0.72)|
|Wall|-0.490|0.079|-0.485|0.158|0.573|2.039|
||(0.53)|(0.17)|(0.52)|(0.14)|(1.53)|(1.18)|
|Structural|0.847|0.060|0.767|-0.354|0.894|-2.272|
||(1.84)|(0.59)|(1.83)|(0.35)|(5.33)|(2.90)|
|Electrical|0.149|0.049|0.169|0.220|0.274|1.253|
||(0.70)|(0.22)|(0.69)|(0.17)|(2.01)|(1.46)|
|Sanitary|-0.887|4.42e-06|-0.879|0.020|-0.035|-0.142|
||(0.57)|(0.18)|(0.56)|(0.16)|(1.64)|(1.31)|
|Finishing|-0.101|-0.138|-0.114|-0.097|-1.309|-1.088|
||(0.63)|(0.20)|(0.63)|(0.16)|(1.83)|(1.31)|
|Production-inputs|<br>1.423***|<br>-0.270**|<br>1.423***|<br>-0.282**|<br>-2.298*|<br>-2.719***|
||(0.41)|(0.13)|(0.41)|(0.12)|(1.19)|(1.00)|
|Other|0.503|-0.149|0.514|-0.115|-0.949|-1.171|
||(0.47)|(0.15)|(0.47)|(0.12)|(1.36)|(0.99)|
|**_Instruments_**|||||||
|Inputprice|0.119***|-0.002|0.049|-0.010|-0.175|-0.103|
||(0.03)|(0.01)|(0.05)|(0.02)|(0.15)|(0.14)|
|Labor-at-start|-0.063|0.159***|-0.654|0.301*|2.055|-0.004|
||(0.15)|(0.05)|(0.56)|(0.17)|(1.62)|(1.38)|
|Labatstart*inpprice|||0.065*|0.011|0.219*|0.108|
||||(0.04)|(0.01)|(0.12)|(0.10)|
|Labatsrat*cappw|||<br>0.067|<br>-0.018|<br>-0.135|<br>0.125|
||||(0.07)|(0.02)|(0.20)|(0.17)|
|Constant|7.175***|0.199|8.19***|-0.040|0.184|1.448|
||(0.61)|(0.20)|(1.05)|(0.33)|(3.05)|(2.73)|
|N|<br>148|<br>148|<br>148|<br>169|<br>148|<br>169|
|R2|0.382|0.382|0.398|0.386|0.39|0.392|
|Adjusted R2|0.317|0.317|0.325|0.321|0.315|0.328|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-23-
|**Table A2: OLS -comparison I**|**V production**|**functions**||
|---|---|---|---|
|Dependent variable:Log ofann|ual revenue|||
|**Columns compared:**|**1**<br>|**2 and 4**<br>|**3 and 5**<br>|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|
|**_Factors_**<br>||||
|Capital-per-worker|0.055<br>|0.053<br>|0.047<br>|
||(0.04)<br>|(0.04)<br>|(0.04)<br>|
|Inputs-per-worker|0.586***|0.589***|0.605***|
||(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.07)|
|**_The Impact of the program_**||||
|Program-Dummie||-0.159|-0.027|
|||(0.17)|(0.92)|
|Program-capital-per-worker|||0.022<br>|
||||(0.09)|
|Program-Inputs-per-Worker|||-0.036<br>(0.09)|
|**_Activities_**||||
|PCB|0.096|0.170|0.170|
||(0.22)|(0.23)|(0.22)|
|HCB|-0.050|-0.046|-0.045|
||(0.19)|(0.20)|(0.18)|
|Gravel|0.674|0.724|0.679|
||(0.45)|(0.46)|(0.45)|
|Wood|0.023|0.046|0.056|
||(0.19)|(0.19)|(0.19)|
|Wall|-0.063|-0.029|-0.050|
||(0.33)|(0.33)|(0.32)|
|Structural|0.154|0.146|0.121|
||(1.18)|(1.18)|(1.12)|
|Electrical|-0.294|-0.287|-0.286|
||(0.44)|(0.44)|(0.42)|
|Sanitary|0.424|0.436|0.457|
||(0.36)|(0.37)|(0.35)|
|Finishing|0.015|-0.005|0.001|
||(0.40)|(0.40)|(0.38)|
|Production-inputs|0.315|0.247|0.232|
||(0.26)|(0.27)|(0.27)|
|Other|0.360|0.328|0.341|
||(0.30)|(0.30)|(0.29)|
|Constant|3.754***|3.805***|3.709***|
||(0.52)|(0.53)|(0.62)|
|N|148|148|148|
|R2|0.6|0.603|0.603|
|Adjusted R2|0.561|0.561|0.555|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-24-
|**Table A3: The determinants of educa**<br>**attainment-OLS**|**tional**|
|---|---|
|Dependent variable: years ofschooling||
|Age|0.571***<br>(0.09)|
|AgeSquared|-0.745***<br>(0.12)|
|Sex|0.173|
||(0.35)|
|Distance to school when 6|-0.640***<br>(0.20)|
|Father farmer|-2.513***<br>(0.38)|
|Father civil servant|1.193***<br>(0.32)|
|Mother farmer|-1.250***<br>(0.56)|
|Mother housewife|-0.605*<br>(0.34)|
|Constant|3.134*|
||(1.61)|
|N|592|
|R2|0.308|
|Adjusted R2|0.298|

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-25-
|**Table A4: Multinomial Logit Selection**<br>**Progr**<br>**Constru**|**Model**<br>**am**<br>**ctor**|**Prog**<br>**Contr**|**ram**<br>**actor**|**Non-P**<br>**Contr**|**rogam**<br>**actor**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Coeff.**|**S.E.**|**Coeff.**|**S.E.**|**Coeff.**|**S.E.**|
|Age<br>-0.01|0.02|0.04|0.03|-0.02|0.02|
|Primary Complete<br>0.78|0.49|-0.12|0.81|0.43|0.74|
|Secondary Complete<br>1.10**|0.50|0.66|0.80|0.29|0.74|
|College<br>0.57|1.33|0.80|1.55|1.24|1.30|
|TVET complete<br>0.70**|0.28|-0.21|0.48|1.34***|0.41|
|Sex<br>0.23|0.27|0.01|0.51|-0.25|0.38|
|Apprentice in the past<br>0.72|0.21|0.62|0.39|0.46|0.32|
|**_Employment History_**||||||
|-ever unemployed<br>0.91|0.23|-0.35|0.39|0.55|0.34|
|-government employee<br>0.58|0.36|1.04**|0.56|0.79|0.52|
|-employee<br>-0.23|0.28|0.63|0.49|0.07|0.41|
|-domestic<br>0.67|0.41|0.91|0.62|1.55**|0.55|
|-self employed<br>-0.84|0.57|-1.82|0.98|0.18|0.86|
|-working in a coop<br>1.67|0.49|0.25|0.92|0.92|0.68|
|-casual worker<br>-0.66*|0.35|-0.35|0.65|-1.71**|0.79|
|**_Activity Prior to Current Job_**||||||
|-unemployed<br>0.48|0.52|0.90|1.18|2.03|1.21|
|-employee<br>0.54|0.54|0.39|1.18|2.05|1.21|
|-self employed<br>1.24|0.76|1.63*|1.45|0.46|1.70|
|-casual worker<br>1.00*|0.54|-0.53|1.29|2.20|1.22|
|-student<br>0.34|0.53|1.03|1.17|1.46|1.25|
|-govt employee<br>0.32|0.74|-1.46**|1.61|1.92|1.38|
|N<br>661||||||
|LR Chi2 (90)<br>912.41||||||
|PseudoR2<br>0.2067||||||

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively

-26-