Advocates of public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure services in developing countries have long battled criticism of these arrangements by civil society groups. The view among PPP adv...
{"title":"Public-Private Partnerships in Developing Countries: The Emerging Evidence-based Critique","authors":"James Leigland","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKX008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKX008","url":null,"abstract":"Advocates of public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure services in developing countries have long battled criticism of these arrangements by civil society groups. The view among PPP adv...","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"244 1","pages":"103-134"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2018-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83491715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper reviews evidence on the benefits and challenges faced by governments migrating from cash to digital (electronic) government-to-person (G2P) payments. When supported by an appropriate consumer financial protection framework, digital payments enable confidential and convenient financial services, which can be especially important for women. By shifting government wages and social transfers into accounts, governments can lead by example. Digitizing G2P payments has the potential to dramatically reduce costs, increase efficiency and transparency, and help recipients build familiarity with digital payments. Digital wage and social transfer payments can also provide the on-ramp to financial inclusion and in many cases the first account that the recipient has in her own name and under her control. However, digitizing G2P payments is not without its challenges. Most importantly, digitization may require significant up-front investments in building an adequate physical payment infrastructure that is able to process such payments, as well as a financial identification system and a consumer protection and education framework to ensure that recipients have safe, reliable, and affordable access to the digital payment system.
{"title":"The Opportunities and Challenges of Digitizing Government-to-Person Payments","authors":"Leora F. Klapper, Dorothe Singer","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKX003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKX003","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews evidence on the benefits and challenges faced by governments migrating from cash to digital (electronic) government-to-person (G2P) payments. When supported by an appropriate consumer financial protection framework, digital payments enable confidential and convenient financial services, which can be especially important for women. By shifting government wages and social transfers into accounts, governments can lead by example. Digitizing G2P payments has the potential to dramatically reduce costs, increase efficiency and transparency, and help recipients build familiarity with digital payments. Digital wage and social transfer payments can also provide the on-ramp to financial inclusion and in many cases the first account that the recipient has in her own name and under her control. However, digitizing G2P payments is not without its challenges. Most importantly, digitization may require significant up-front investments in building an adequate physical payment infrastructure that is able to process such payments, as well as a financial identification system and a consumer protection and education framework to ensure that recipients have safe, reliable, and affordable access to the digital payment system.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"65 1","pages":"211-226"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88076070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What role do institutional constraints and social norms play in determining persistent gender gapsin economic and political participation and have institutional reforms been successful in reducing these gaps? This paper argues that, at the roots of current gender inequalities, there are traditional patriarchal social structures in which power is unequally distributed, with men traditionally holding authority over women. The power imbalance is manifested in governance arrangements, of which the author consider discriminatory formal laws and adverse gender norms that perpetuate gender inequality. The author reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of reforms addressing gender inequality and applied via formal law changes. Aware of endogeneity issues as reforms may be adopted in countries where attitudes toward women had already been improving, we focus on micro-empirical studies that tackle this challenge. The evidence suggests that some reforms have been successful reducing inequalities. Power and norms can shift and sometimes temporary interventions can deliver long-term results. There are, however, enormous challenges posed by power inequalities and inherent social norms that are slow-moving. Formal laws can remain ineffective or cause a backlash because: i) the law is poorly implemented and/or people are not aware of it; ii) informal systems and social norms/sanctions are stronger; iii) powerful groups (in our case, men) may oppose these changes. Finally, reforms that improve women’s economic opportunities can create the conditions to increase political participation and vice-versa, thereby generating a self-reinforcing cycle of inclusion.
{"title":"Governance and Women's Economic and Political Participation: Power Inequalities, Formal Constraints and Norms","authors":"A. Milazzo, Markus Goldstein","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKY006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKY006","url":null,"abstract":"What role do institutional constraints and social norms play in determining persistent gender gapsin economic and political participation and have institutional reforms been successful in reducing these gaps? This paper argues that, at the roots of current gender inequalities, there are traditional patriarchal social structures in which power is unequally distributed, with men traditionally holding authority over women. The power imbalance is manifested in governance arrangements, of which the author consider discriminatory formal laws and adverse gender norms that perpetuate gender inequality. The author reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of reforms addressing gender inequality and applied via formal law changes. Aware of endogeneity issues as reforms may be adopted in countries where attitudes toward women had already been improving, we focus on micro-empirical studies that tackle this challenge. The evidence suggests that some reforms have been successful reducing inequalities. Power and norms can shift and sometimes temporary interventions can deliver long-term results. There are, however, enormous challenges posed by power inequalities and inherent social norms that are slow-moving. Formal laws can remain ineffective or cause a backlash because: i) the law is poorly implemented and/or people are not aware of it; ii) informal systems and social norms/sanctions are stronger; iii) powerful groups (in our case, men) may oppose these changes. Finally, reforms that improve women’s economic opportunities can create the conditions to increase political participation and vice-versa, thereby generating a self-reinforcing cycle of inclusion.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2017-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/WBRO/LKY006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41888601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Groundwater exploitation has been instrumental in raising agricultural productivity andreducing rural poverty in South Asia, a region that accounts for nearly half of the globalgroundwater used for irrigation. Over the past three decades there has been an explosion ofprivate investment in borewells and mechanized pumps, which has allowed access togroundwater to be widely shared. But this profusion of drilling and pumping has also led toserious groundwater depletion. This essay explores South Asia’s groundwater dilemmathrough the lens of welfare economics, drawing on evidence from India and Pakistangleaned from a variety of sources ranging from agricultural censuses to specialized surveys.Policies to arrest groundwater depletion are also discussed.
{"title":"'Well-fare' Economics of Groundwater in South Asia","authors":"Hanan G. Jacoby","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKW008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKW008","url":null,"abstract":"Groundwater exploitation has been instrumental in raising agricultural productivity andreducing rural poverty in South Asia, a region that accounts for nearly half of the globalgroundwater used for irrigation. Over the past three decades there has been an explosion ofprivate investment in borewells and mechanized pumps, which has allowed access togroundwater to be widely shared. But this profusion of drilling and pumping has also led toserious groundwater depletion. This essay explores South Asia’s groundwater dilemmathrough the lens of welfare economics, drawing on evidence from India and Pakistangleaned from a variety of sources ranging from agricultural censuses to specialized surveys.Policies to arrest groundwater depletion are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"102 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2017-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84648537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Payment by Results (PbR), where aid is disbursed conditional upon progress against a pre-agreed measure, is becoming increasingly important for various donors. There are great hopes that this innovative instrument will focus attention on ultimate outcomes and lead to greater aid effectiveness by passing the delivery risk on to recipients. However, there is very little related empirical evidence, and previous attempts to place it on a sure conceptual footing are rare and incomplete. This article collates and synthesises relevant insights from a wide range of subfields in economics, providing a rich framework with which to analyze Payment by Results. I argue that the domain in which it dominates more traditional forms is relatively small and if it is used too broadly, many of the results it claims are likely to be misleading. The likelihood of illusory gains stems from the difficulty of using a single indicator to simultaneously measure and reward performance: ‘once a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.’ This does not mean PbR should not be used (indeed it will be optimal in some settings), but it does mean that claims of success should be treated with caution.
{"title":"Payment by Results in Development Aid: All That Glitters Is Not Gold","authors":"P. Clist","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKW005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKW005","url":null,"abstract":"Payment by Results (PbR), where aid is disbursed conditional upon progress against a pre-agreed measure, is becoming increasingly important for various donors. There are great hopes that this innovative instrument will focus attention on ultimate outcomes and lead to greater aid effectiveness by passing the delivery risk on to recipients. However, there is very little related empirical evidence, and previous attempts to place it on a sure conceptual footing are rare and incomplete. This article collates and synthesises relevant insights from a wide range of subfields in economics, providing a rich framework with which to analyze Payment by Results. I argue that the domain in which it dominates more traditional forms is relatively small and if it is used too broadly, many of the results it claims are likely to be misleading. The likelihood of illusory gains stems from the difficulty of using a single indicator to simultaneously measure and reward performance: ‘once a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.’ This does not mean PbR should not be used (indeed it will be optimal in some settings), but it does mean that claims of success should be treated with caution.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"4 1","pages":"290-319"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87525005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many smallholder families are exceptionally prone to potentially catastrophic decreases in their incomes and access to food. Over the past decade, therefore, policy makers and economists have increasingly focused on potential mechanisms for expanding risk management strategies available to those families. Commercially provided weather-based index insurance products, perhaps partially funded by subsidies, have been of particular interest because of their apparent potential to provide payments to smallholder families when they are most in need of help. However, the empirical evidence from a wide range of studies indicates that, absent relatively substantial subsidies, small holder farmers will not purchase commercially priced index products or even "all risk" products where payments are tied to the farm's crop losses. There are three important reasons why this is the case. First, smallholder farmers already have many ways of managing their risks, including informal community-based initiatives, on-farm production decisions and off-farm work. Second, index insurance schemes are subject to considerable basis risk; families often do not receive an index insurance indemnity when they experience a substantial crop loss on their farms. Third, the fixed costs of delivering crop insurance to smallholders make such coverage expensive. The potential market for weather index insurance therefore may be limited to insuring relatively large groups of farmers, either directly or indirectly though providing micro finance and other lending institution with coverage against widespread loan defaults associated with catastrophic events like major droughts. Alternatively, weather indexes could simply be used to more accurately target emergency aid.
{"title":"Producer Insurance and Risk Management Options for Smallholder Farmers","authors":"V. Smith","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKW002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKW002","url":null,"abstract":"Many smallholder families are exceptionally prone to potentially catastrophic decreases in their incomes and access to food. Over the past decade, therefore, policy makers and economists have increasingly focused on potential mechanisms for expanding risk management strategies available to those families. Commercially provided weather-based index insurance products, perhaps partially funded by subsidies, have been of particular interest because of their apparent potential to provide payments to smallholder families when they are most in need of help. However, the empirical evidence from a wide range of studies indicates that, absent relatively substantial subsidies, small holder farmers will not purchase commercially priced index products or even \"all risk\" products where payments are tied to the farm's crop losses. There are three important reasons why this is the case. First, smallholder farmers already have many ways of managing their risks, including informal community-based initiatives, on-farm production decisions and off-farm work. Second, index insurance schemes are subject to considerable basis risk; families often do not receive an index insurance indemnity when they experience a substantial crop loss on their farms. Third, the fixed costs of delivering crop insurance to smallholders make such coverage expensive. The potential market for weather index insurance therefore may be limited to insuring relatively large groups of farmers, either directly or indirectly though providing micro finance and other lending institution with coverage against widespread loan defaults associated with catastrophic events like major droughts. Alternatively, weather indexes could simply be used to more accurately target emergency aid.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"100 1","pages":"271-289"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83355934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We review empirical evidence on the ability of decentralization to enhance preference matching and technical efficiency in the provision of health and education in developing countries. Many influential surveys have found that the empirical evidence of decentralization's effects on service delivery is weak, incomplete, and often contradictory. Our own unweighted reading of the literature concurs. However, when we organize quantitative evidence first by substantive theme, and then—crucially—by empirical quality and the credibility of its identification strategy, clear patterns emerge. Higher-quality evidence indicates that decentralization increases technical efficiency across a variety of public services, from student test scores to infant mortality rates. Decentralization also improves preference matching in education, and can do so in health under certain conditions, although there is less evidence for both. We discuss individual studies in some detail. Weighting by quality is especially important when quantitative evidence informs policy-making. Firmer conclusions will require an increased focus on research design, and a deeper examination into the prerequisites and mechanisms of successful reforms.
{"title":"Decentralization of Health and Education in Developing Countries: A Quality-Adjusted Review of the Empirical Literature","authors":"A. Channa, J. Faguet","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKW001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKW001","url":null,"abstract":"We review empirical evidence on the ability of decentralization to enhance preference matching and technical efficiency in the provision of health and education in developing countries. Many influential surveys have found that the empirical evidence of decentralization's effects on service delivery is weak, incomplete, and often contradictory. Our own unweighted reading of the literature concurs. However, when we organize quantitative evidence first by substantive theme, and then—crucially—by empirical quality and the credibility of its identification strategy, clear patterns emerge. Higher-quality evidence indicates that decentralization increases technical efficiency across a variety of public services, from student test scores to infant mortality rates. Decentralization also improves preference matching in education, and can do so in health under certain conditions, although there is less evidence for both. We discuss individual studies in some detail. Weighting by quality is especially important when quantitative evidence informs policy-making. Firmer conclusions will require an increased focus on research design, and a deeper examination into the prerequisites and mechanisms of successful reforms.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"4 1","pages":"199-241"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85961765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The longstanding "cash versus food" debate has received renewed attention in both research and practice. This paper reviews key issues shaping the debate and presents new evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental evaluations that deliberately compare cash and in-kind food transfers in ten developing counties. Findings show that relative effectiveness cannot be generalized: although some differences emerge in terms of food consumption and dietary diversity, average impacts tend to depend on context, specific objectives, their measurement, and program design. Costs for cash transfers and vouchers tend to be significantly lower relative to in-kind food. Yet the consistency and robustness of methods for efficiency analyses varies greatly.
{"title":"Revisiting the “Cash versus Food” Debate: New Evidence for an Old Puzzle?","authors":"U. Gentilini","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKV012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKV012","url":null,"abstract":"The longstanding \"cash versus food\" debate has received renewed attention in both research and practice. This paper reviews key issues shaping the debate and presents new evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental evaluations that deliberately compare cash and in-kind food transfers in ten developing counties. Findings show that relative effectiveness cannot be generalized: although some differences emerge in terms of food consumption and dietary diversity, average impacts tend to depend on context, specific objectives, their measurement, and program design. Costs for cash transfers and vouchers tend to be significantly lower relative to in-kind food. Yet the consistency and robustness of methods for efficiency analyses varies greatly.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"80 1","pages":"135-167"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2015-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80390283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This review explores current understandings of child development and the consequences for children of risk exposure in low- and middle-income countries by integrating empirical evidence from development economics with insights from allied social science disciplines. It provides a holistic perspective that highlights the synergies between children's developmental domains, drawing particular attention to dimensions such as self-efficacy, self-esteem and aspirations, which have had only limited treatment in the economics literature to date, especially in developing countries. It concludes that there is strong evidence of dynamic relationships between risk factors in early childhood and later outcomes across multiple developmental domains, emphasizing the heightened effect of shocks to the care environment and the cumulative effect of multiple shocks. It also concludes that risk is distributed unevenly, with children who are both in poverty and disadvantaged socially according to, for example, their ethnicity bearing the greatest burden; within a household, gender, birth order and other factors mean that some suffer disproportionately from shortfalls and incomplete protection. However, this review finds that low endowments in early childhood can be at least partially compensated for through improved environments and investments in later childhood, emphasizing the resilience of some children. The review goes on to explore the impact on children of dramatic socio-economic changes that have occurred in recent years with rapid growth across most developing countries. It highlights four key forces for change—fall in absolute poverty, increased access to services, changing household incentives for investing in children, and changing social and cultural values—and stresses the ambiguous effects on the welfare of children and their long-term prospects. In so doing, the review aims to consolidate emerging evidence on how risks and opportunities for child development may have changed in these dynamic contexts.
{"title":"Child development in a changing world: Risks and opportunities","authors":"J. Boyden, S. Dercon, Abhijeet Singh","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKU009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKU009","url":null,"abstract":"This review explores current understandings of child development and the consequences for children of risk exposure in low- and middle-income countries by integrating empirical evidence from development economics with insights from allied social science disciplines. It provides a holistic perspective that highlights the synergies between children's developmental domains, drawing particular attention to dimensions such as self-efficacy, self-esteem and aspirations, which have had only limited treatment in the economics literature to date, especially in developing countries. It concludes that there is strong evidence of dynamic relationships between risk factors in early childhood and later outcomes across multiple developmental domains, emphasizing the heightened effect of shocks to the care environment and the cumulative effect of multiple shocks. It also concludes that risk is distributed unevenly, with children who are both in poverty and disadvantaged socially according to, for example, their ethnicity bearing the greatest burden; within a household, gender, birth order and other factors mean that some suffer disproportionately from shortfalls and incomplete protection. However, this review finds that low endowments in early childhood can be at least partially compensated for through improved environments and investments in later childhood, emphasizing the resilience of some children. The review goes on to explore the impact on children of dramatic socio-economic changes that have occurred in recent years with rapid growth across most developing countries. It highlights four key forces for change—fall in absolute poverty, increased access to services, changing household incentives for investing in children, and changing social and cultural values—and stresses the ambiguous effects on the welfare of children and their long-term prospects. In so doing, the review aims to consolidate emerging evidence on how risks and opportunities for child development may have changed in these dynamic contexts.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"29 1","pages":"193-219"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2015-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86702451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The conventional wisdom on firm dynamics, productivity growth, and job creation in developing countries is based on data that, by design, excludes a vast number of micro- and small enterprises, many of which are informal. Some may not view this exclusion as an issue, on the grounds that the omitted economic units reflect survivorship rather than entrepreneurship. However, the thresholds that determine the truncation of the data are relatively arbitrary, and the firms that are typically excluded are associated with a large share of total employment. This paper assesses the ways in which the conventional wisdom on developing countries would change if micro- and small enterprises were taken into account in the analyses. The assessment shows that micro- and small enterprises account for a greater share of gross job creation and destruction than acknowledged by the conventional wisdom. It also reveals a greater dispersion of firm productivity, a weaker correlation between firm productivity and firm size, and a smaller contribution of within-firm productivity gains to aggregate productivity growth. This assessment points to new directions in the data and research efforts needed to understand the role of micro- and small enterprises and to identify policies with the potential to foster job creation and aggregate productivity growth in developing countries.
{"title":"Firm Dynamics, Productivity Growth, and Job Creation in Developing Countries: The Role of Micro- and Small Enterprises","authors":"Yue Li, M. Rama","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKV002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKV002","url":null,"abstract":"The conventional wisdom on firm dynamics, productivity growth, and job creation in developing countries is based on data that, by design, excludes a vast number of micro- and small enterprises, many of which are informal. Some may not view this exclusion as an issue, on the grounds that the omitted economic units reflect survivorship rather than entrepreneurship. However, the thresholds that determine the truncation of the data are relatively arbitrary, and the firms that are typically excluded are associated with a large share of total employment. This paper assesses the ways in which the conventional wisdom on developing countries would change if micro- and small enterprises were taken into account in the analyses. The assessment shows that micro- and small enterprises account for a greater share of gross job creation and destruction than acknowledged by the conventional wisdom. It also reveals a greater dispersion of firm productivity, a weaker correlation between firm productivity and firm size, and a smaller contribution of within-firm productivity gains to aggregate productivity growth. This assessment points to new directions in the data and research efforts needed to understand the role of micro- and small enterprises and to identify policies with the potential to foster job creation and aggregate productivity growth in developing countries.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"30 1","pages":"3-38"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2015-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81500764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：