Supporting Youth Employment through Cash Grants for Entrepreneurship: Findings from a Qualitative Study of the Perspectives and Experiences of Cash Grant Recipients under the Benin Youth Employment Project (P132667) This report was prepared by Rachael Pierotti and Kristen McNeill and is a product of the World Bank Africa Gender Innovation Lab, Office of the Chief Economist of the Africa Region. The research was made possible by a grant from the Partnership for Economic Inclusion. Additional support was provided by the World Bank Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality (UFGE). The qualitative data collection was conducted by a team of researchers from Centre de Recherche et d’Appui-conseils pour le Développement (CRAD), based at the Université d’Abomey-Calavi. The research would not have been possible without the excellent work of Professor Abou-Bakari Imorou, Sall Moustapha Gibigaye, Kassim Assouma, Nadège Aduke Inuya Akpona, Dorice Djeton Goudou, and Hubert Gnanvi, as well as a supporting team of transcribers. This research was inspired and guided by the research of World Bank colleagues, Julia Vaillant (Africa Gender Innovation Lab) and Thomas Bossuroy (Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice). It received critical support from Saint-Martin Mongan-Agbeshie and Solène Rougeaux, both from the Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice, who provided operational leadership on the PEJ and a subsequent youth employment project in Benin. 1 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Design ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Data collection methodology .................................................................................................................... 4 Sampling.................................................................................................................................................... 4 Interpretation of results............................................................................................................................ 5 Preliminary Findings...................................................................................................................................... 6 Perceptions of PEJ and of the PEJ grants .................................................................................................. 6 Perceived benefit of the PEJ grants .......................................................................................................... 8 Redistributive pressure ............................................................................................................................. 9 Business inputs........................................................................................................................................ 10 Investments............................................................................................................................................. 11 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Annex A: In-depth interview guide ............................................................................................................. 14 2 Introduction Benin’s labor market is characterized by a high participation rate, but extensive informality (90.7 percent of jobs are informal) and underemployment (72 per cent of the economically active population is underemployed). Underemployment is even higher among youth (92 per cent) and rural women (91 per cent). The labor market is also extremely segregated by gender. Women are particularly vulnerable and consistently clustered into female-dominated lower-paid job categories or grades, with low productivity. Given limited opportunities for formal sector employment, promoting productive self-employment is critical. However, several constraints hinder the creation and development of successful businesses, including the lack of management skills and the lack of start-up capital. Under the Benin Youth Employment Project (P132667) (PEJ), closed in June 2019, the Government of Benin (GoB) successfully piloted a gender sensitive economic inclusion program. In addition to a comprehensive package of services, the project included services and operational processes to maximize female participation (e.g., provision of on-site childcare during training, adjustment of training schedules to accommodate household duties). The PEJ focused on helping youth start or expand their income-generating activities by delivering business and life skills training and cash grants. The training was delivered in 14 half-day sessions to groups of 20- 25 young men and women, and included both business and life skills. It covered fundamental business skills such as choosing the right business idea, basic accounting, marketing, and planning. The life skills modules focused on communication, problem solving, gender and empowerment, aspirations, and initiative. The cash grant was valued at 200,000cfa (approximately $360). An impact evaluation of PEJ, conducted by the World Bank’s Gender Innovation Lab (GIL), was designed to measure the impact of these components alone and in combination. One group of participants received both interventions, one group only the training, one group only the cash grant, and a control group received neither. The ambition was to evaluate the relative impacts of relaxing the financial capital constraint, the human capital constraint, and both simultaneously. The GIL impact evaluation showed that the effects of the program differed depending on the package of support. The results were nearly the opposite of what the team had expected: broadly, the cash grants had null or negative effects on business profits and the training had positive impacts. Furthermore, the negative impact of the cash grants seems to have canceled the positive impact of the training when they were offered in combination. More specifically, the life skills and entrepreneurship training had positive impact on socio-emotional well-being, women’s control over their own resources, and productive investments, and translated into a consistently positive effect on earnings for both women and men. In contrast, the cash grant alone had no overall impact for men, and had a short-term negative impact on earnings for women, despite evidence of business investments. When combined, the effects of the two interventions seem to cancel each other: for participants who received both the training and the grant, there was no impact on earnings, suggesting that the negative impact of the cash canceled the positive impact of the training. These unexpected findings motivated this follow-up qualitative study. With support from the Partnership for Economic Inclusion, the Social Protection and Jobs team that manages the youth employment projects in Benin collaborated with GIL to conduct a long-term qualitative follow-up study of PEJ participants. The purpose of the study was to investigate the mechanisms of impact 3 of the cash grants by gathering grant recipients’ perspectives on the support they received. The research questions and methodology are described in the next section. Study Design The goal of this qualitative study was to examine why the cash grants disbursed to PEJ participants failed on average to translate into increased profits and earnings. Specifically, there were two guiding research questions: 1. How was the cash grant income perceived and used? 2. What are the mechanisms underlying the lack of positive impact of the cash grants, and are they the same for men and women? To answer these questions, we conducted in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of PEJ grant recipients. The interviews focused on the evolution of their income generating activities since they began working and their recollection of how they used the PEJ grant. Data collection methodology Since we hoped to capture personal stories about finances and labor market activities, we collected data exclusively through in-depth individual interviews. The interviews were conducted by researchers affiliated with the Centre de Recherche et d’Appui-conseils pour le Développement (CRAD). All the researchers had prior training and experience in qualitative research methodology. Before launching the data collection, they also participated in a workshop with study leadership to collectively review the study objectives and to refine the data collection tools. The interview guide was structured to first inquire about the participant’s household structure and the evolution of their income generating activities since the beginning of their economic participation. After gathering an unrestricted narrative, we asked specifically about the use of the PEJ grant and probed to examine the level of support for several hypotheses for the lack of profit growth following grant disbursement. Interviews were conducted in the language preferred by the participant—sometimes French and often local languages. Each interview was audio-recorded and then transcribed into French by a team of transcribers. The transcriptions were reviewed by the interviewers or by project supervisors. Interviews typically lasted 45-75 minutes. The interview guide is included in Annex A. Sampling The sample was drawn from the quantitative impact evaluation’s list of PEJ grant recipients. Although PEJ operated nationwide, the impact evaluation and the qualitative research took place only in southern Benin. Study participants were drawn from lists of PEJ grant recipients in five départements (states) in southern Benin: Mono, Couffo, Ouémé, Atlantique, and Plateau. The impact evaluation included multiple rounds of survey data collection, starting with a baseline survey in July 2017. Cash grants were distributed in March-June 2018. Follow-up surveys were conducted in November 2018-March 2019, again in November 2019-March 2020, and finally by phone in July 2021. From the full list of impact evaluation participants, the sample was first restricted in the following ways: 4 • Includes only participants who responded to the July 2021 survey, which was missing 15% of the baseline survey respondents. This was to maximize the chances that the individuals could be successfully recontacted. • Excludes individuals who were working in agriculture at baseline. This was to increase comparability across participants since engagement in agricultural activities was unevenly distributed geographically and almost exclusively pursued by men. Furthermore, the cycles of investment and returns in agriculture are substantially different from those in most other sectors. • Includes only participants in the cash only or the cash+training treatment arms. Excludes the control and the training only treatment arm. The remaining participants were stratified to enable purposive sampling for the qualitative study. The strata were defined by the gender of the grant recipient and the estimated impact of PEJ on business profits. We wished to interview PEJ grant recipients who had reported growth in profits between baseline and the follow-up surveys of the impact evaluation, as well as those who had not reported growth. The “growth� group was defined as those whose reported profits were at least 20% higher than baseline at both the second and third follow-up surveys. This includes individuals who reported no profits (or no business) at baseline and positive profits in the follow-up surveys. The “no growth� group was defined as those reporting profits that are lower in the second and third follow-up surveys than at baseline, as well as profits that are unchanged or up to 10% higher at follow-up than at baseline. The value of profits is not inflation adjusted, so growth of 10% or less over a period of 3 years is approximately equivalent to no real growth. Using these definitions, we created four sample strata: • Female grant recipients whose profits at follow-up were higher than at baseline. Strata size = 236 potential qualitative study participants • Female grant recipients whose profits at follow-up were equal to or lower than at baseline. Strata size = 177 potential qualitative study participants • Male grant recipients whose profits at follow-up were higher than at baseline. Strata size = 124 potential qualitative study participants • Male grant recipients whose profits at follow-up were equal to or lower than at baseline. Strata size = 79 potential qualitative study participants To ensure geographic (and socioeconomic) variation, these potential qualitative study participants were also divided among the 5 départements selected for inclusion in the study. Separately for each of the 5 départements, potential participants were grouped by strata and then randomly ordered. The qualitative research team attempted to recruit 4-5 participants from each strata in each département, for a total of 22 participants from each strata. Potential participants were contacted in the order listed. Given that nearly two years had passed since the last contact between GIL and these individuals, we expected to have trouble reaching and recruiting participants. We anticipated approximately a 30% success rate in recruitment. [I will add more on the recruitment results when we have that information.] Interpretation of results Before proceeding to a description of the preliminary results, it is important to emphasize two limitations of the data collection. First, despite repeated efforts to underscore a distinction between the research team and the PEJ implementers, research participants revealed through their questions to the 5 interviewers that they believed the researchers had a connection to PEJ. Furthermore, as discussed below, research participants were motivated to please anyone associated with PEJ because of appreciation for the assistance from PEJ and hopes for additional assistance. For example, at the end of her interview, Participant 1 (female) expressed a common sentiment when she said, “Thank you, thank you for remembering us, thank you also to the foreigners who still have this noble initiative to help our brothers and sisters find relief; but, I hope that we really seize this opportunity.� When analyzing the data, we have assumed that responses are influenced by this strong social desirability bias. Second, during the interviews we asked participants to recall experiences in the past. These responses are subject to recall bias. The way research participants remember and report the past are most likely influenced by their more recent experiences. To mitigate this issue, when feasible we asked for specifics on important issues. Most notably, we requested a detailed accounting of the way the PEJ grant was spent. When interpreting the data, it is sensible to give more weight to those types of specific responses than to general responses that convey feelings rather than descriptions of actions. Preliminary Findings The findings presented below are based on an initial read-through of the data available at the time of writing (approximately one-third of the data collected for this study). The findings will be refined based on more data, systematic analysis, and workshops with the researchers who conducted the data collection. Perceptions of PEJ and of the PEJ grants One of the most notable and consistent study findings is that the PEJ grant was memorable for recipients. Implementation of the PEJ program included several years of intensive public communication about the program and the benefits being offered. The lotteries for selection of beneficiaries were televised. These design elements likely contributed to widespread knowledge of the program. Furthermore, the research found that participants recalled specifical details about the benefits that they received. Without exception, every interview participant recalled the exact amount of the grant, even though five years have passed since the grants were disbursed. The grant itself was remembered as a substantial and helpful sum of money. Participants also readily recalled the recipient selection process and the cash transfer method. Without prompting, many study participants described drawing red and green balls from a bag to learn whether they had won the grant. They also recalled receiving SIM cards so the transfer could be received via mobile money. It is notable that the experience of being a PEJ grant recipient was distinct and memorable because it indicates that recipients distinguished the project’s transfer from other sources of financial support. The message that the PEJ grants were intended for business investments was universally acknowledged. This expectation was mentioned by interview participants when narrating how they used the grant. For example, Participant 6 (male) explained: “They told us that the money they gave us should not be used to marry a woman, nor to lend to anyone, but to buy products and tools for our work, and then they would come back to see the results.� Participant 10 (male) summarized the same sentiment, saying that PEJ personnel “told them that the money was not meant for eating.� This message about the importance of 6 using the grant for business investment was frequently referenced again when recipients talked about the advice they would give to other grant recipients. Most said that they would advise others to invest the grant in their business and not to use it for consumption. Grant recipients understood that the money was meant for business investment. Moreover, grant recipients explained that PEJ personnel supervised how the grants were used. PEJ personnel visited many grant recipients to verify that the grant had been used for business investments. Sometimes they took photos of the items that had been purchased. Participant 40 (male) explained, “I paid for tools and materials for my work and those who were mandated by PEJ came to see and they even took photos.� Even if they had not been visited, many expressed an expectation that their investment decisions could or would be verified by project personnel. Participant 41 (female) took the initiative herself to call PEJ personnel so she could show them what she had purchased because, as she said, “you must show results to those who have helped you.� This strong messaging that the grants were meant for investment undoubtedly influenced how the money was used and encouraged people to retain details about their investments. Nearly all research participants provided specific information about what they purchased using the grant money, including details about how much they spent for each item. Common purchases included items for resale, equipment or other business assets, and workshop rent or construction. A few participants admitted to spending 10,000-15,000cfa on consumption needs, but never more than that. Other participants recounted using savings or borrowing additional money to augment the PEJ grant so they could make an even larger investment. More information on the use of PEJ grants is provided below. Although grant recipients certainly felt pressure to make business investments, and to invest the full value of the grant, they did not report pressure from PEJ personnel to invest in specific ways . No one reported PEJ personnel advocating for specific investments. However, two research participants represent a minor exception to this finding. Participants 16 and 18, both women, explained that they felt it was necessary to invest in the way they had initially proposed to PEJ personnel. Participant 16 had a soy cheese making business before receiving the grant. She told PEJ personnel that she planned to purchase equipment for that business and she felt compelled to stick to that plan. She explained, “I said to myself, what I said there, if I don't do it and people come, what am I going to say?� Participant 18 had a phone credit business before the PEJ grant but she indicated that she planned to invest in palm oil production. When asked why she did not invest in the phone credit business, she explained that she did not feel free to change her investment plan after receiving the money. She said, “it's because what I said there to take the money there is what I have to do.� From the interview, it is not clear which business represented the more profitable investment opportunity, but it is evident that she felt constrained. These exceptions notwithstanding, PEJ grant recipients do not seem to have felt coerced into specific types of investment other than the pressure they felt to invest in businesses rather than consumption. One important programmatic lesson from this finding is that the investment plans may have served as an overly strong commitment device, leading beneficiaries to continue with initial investment plans, even when they came to view those as suboptimal. PEJ grants were perceived as the individual property of the grant recipient and were not treated as a joint household asset. An important final note about how the grants were perceived is that both male and female recipients treated the grant as capital for their own individual investments. This contrasts with findings from other research studies that found that the lack of impact on profits of cash grants to female 7 microenterprises owners was due to the capital being invested in their husband’s business (Bernhardt et al. 2019). We asked research participants whether they consulted with their spouse about the investment decision, as well as how they thought their spouse would have used the grant if the spouse had been the recipient. Many, but not all, recipients consulted with their spouse about their investment decision. None of the study participants indicated that the discussion had been about selecting the investment that would maximize household income. Furthermore, when asked what their spouse would have done with the PEJ grant, most replied that their spouse would have invested in a different business than their own. As an extreme example, Participant 29 (female) has a business selling items that she makes from pearls. Her husband is a salaried teacher. Even though she is the only household member with an active business, when asked how her husband would have invested the PEJ grant, she says, “That's up to him. I can't answer for him.� Men most often commented that they would encourage their wife to invest in a business, rather than consumption, but they also implied that if their wife had been the grant recipient, it would have belonged to her. In sum, PEJ grants were invested for individual gain, not to maximize household earnings. This is likely linked with the rigid connection that recipients perceived between the cash grant and the investment plan that they shared in advance with PEJ staff. From a gender perspective, this may have allowed women in particular to protect this money from cooptation by their husbands or other family members. Perceived benefit of the PEJ grants All study participants described having experienced substantial benefits from the PEJ grant. Following our sampling strategy, half of the sample was purposively selected because the quantitative data from the impact evaluation indicated that they had not experienced business growth. Despite this sample composition, study participants universally described positive impacts of the grant. Some study participants narrated challenges that they had encountered in the years between the grant disbursement and the interview, but all recounted at least initial success. Undoubtedly, social desirability bias accounts for some of the emphasis on positive results in participants’ narratives. Based on the analysis so far, however, this does not seem to be the complete explanation for the inconsistency between the quantitative and qualitative pictures of business success. Further data analysis is needed to examine the reasons for this discrepancy between the experiential effects of the grant and the quantified impacts as measured through surveys. Some of the study participants who were labeled as showing no growth, describe specific and concrete benefits stemming from investment of the PEJ grant. Participant 45 (female), for example, used the grant to purchase additional equipment for her tailoring workshop and some items for resale. She explained that she needed another machine because she had an apprentice who was otherwise sitting idle. When she said that her business is stronger now, the interviewer asked her to quantify the improvements. The interviewer asked, “Let’s say before PEJ came you earned 10,000cfa. Now that PEJ has come, how much has been added?� She responded: “Let’s say that 20,000cfa has been added.� She also explained that she had enough of an improvement in her profits to purchase a parcel. She did suggest, however, that her business may not be doing as well in the past couple of years since she gave birth to her first child. She said, “Now that I’ve given birth, things will never be the same again.� This downturn may have coincided with the final survey data collection. 8 Participant 51 (male) similarly describes specific benefits from the PEJ grant investment and is also labeled as having had no growth. Before PEJ, he was trained as a welder but was working odd jobs because he could not afford the tools to start his own business. Using the PEJ grant, plus some money from his father, he purchased the needed equipment. He thanked PEJ “because they helped us poor people to develop our business. And if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t be at this level in my work.� He estimated that his earnings increased from 20,000cfa before PEJ to 30-35,000cfa since his investment. He has used his income to buy a house and is able to support his family. The data include more stories such as these from Participants 45 and 51. Even most of the study participants who described business downturns or challenges in the years since the grant disbursement explained that they initially benefited from the investment. Participant 31 (male) was a photographer who used the PEJ grant to purchase a camera and pay rent for a studio. Initially he did well, but since the widespread introduction of smartphones, there is no longer a market for photographers, and he has been forced to close his business. The interviewer asked if he would have changed his investment strategy if he had been offered a loan instead of a grant and the Participant confirmed that it was a good investment at the time: “The same way I used it, I'd use it again.� Participant 40 (male) also had initial success, but his businesses took a downturn when he became ill. He is a shoemaker who also raises livestock and engages in palm oil production. He used 120,000cfa of the PEJ grant to purchase tools for his shoemaking business and he saved the rest. Once he became ill, he used his savings and some of his business capital to seek medical treatment. Now he is forced to rebuild. The few study participants who mentioned that they could have done better with the initial investment were notable outliers in the sample. Participant 14 (female) explained that she was young and had recently given birth when she received the PEJ grant. She used the money to start selling pagnes (fabric) but says she would invest more effectively now: “So when the money came, I had a new baby and the money helped me to start something, but if I were to be given the money again today, I'd know how to manage it better.� In particular, she regrets selling her products on credit. Participant 30 (male) stated that he should have started his mobile money agent business in a different location. His business was successful for three years, but then he faced challenges with others in his community and he believes they undermined his business. Overall, given the sampling strategy that intentionally targeted grant recipients who did not report profit growth in the years following the disbursement of the money, we expected to hear more stories like these. Instead, the overwhelming majority reported that if they were transported back in time, they would make the same investment choices again. Redistributive pressure Study participants report engaging in a fair amount of income sharing, but the data do not suggest that increased redistributive pressure undermined the impact of the PEJ grants. During the interviews, before discussion of PEJ, participants were asked to list people to whom they regularly or occasionally send financial support. Many explained that they send help to family members when they are able. A few explained that they give more support to family now that their business is more profitable. Yet no one said that they had diverted some of the PEJ grant directly to support for others. As Participant 1 (female) claimed, “I wasn't given money to go out and lend to people, no.� In addition to the absence of evidence of grant capture, study participants’ explanations of the past and current income sharing practices do not 9 suggest that they experienced a dramatic increase in redistributive pressure following investment of the grant, although the data are insufficient to fully examine this hypothesis. A few grant recipients anticipated or experienced pressure to share the grant, but they employed strategies to avoid giving away part of the grant. Participant 9 (male) explained that his strategy was to claim that the grant had not yet arrived: “they can't ask me anymore because I've already told them that my Momo transfer hasn't come yet. So that was the strategy I used to keep people from asking me for more.� Others explained that the expectation that the grant was for business investment allowed them to resist redistributive pressures. Like others, Participant 29 (female) explained that she had a plan for how to invest the grant before it arrived and she needed to adhere to her plan, so she spent quickly and did not divert any of the grant to respond to requests from others. The program requirement of an investment plan as part of the application process may have contributed to grant recipients’ ability to resist pressure to share the grant. Business inputs Receipt of the PEJ grant spurred greater labor investments, rather than relieving financial pressure and thereby permitting a reduction in work effort. When narrating their business trajectories, study participants described working hard to translate investments into enduring success for their businesses. When interviewers asked directly whether receiving the PEJ grant meant that they could work less, study respondents almost always responded with incredulity that the truth was the exact opposite. Of course, this is the socially desirable response, but the reactions were generally convincing. When asked if he had reduced his work hours, Participant 31 (male) said, “No, I did not do that because I had ambitious goals and when I took the money, I was motivated to work more.� Participant 45 (female) said, “No, I didn’t do that [work less], because if someone does that, then when they want to continue, they will start all over again at zero.� Participant 40 (male) explained his motivation for working tirelessly: “I don't even have a house, I'm in a rental and I pay rent every month. My children don't even go to school yet so I don't even know what someone can give me and it's going to wear me out.� Participant 24 (male), who produces palm oil, said, “The money has meant that the work has increased. So we have to work harder.� The interviews are full of statements such as these. For the most part, receipt of the PEJ grant also did not lead to reductions in financial support from other sources. Before asking about PEJ, we asked all interview participants to describe their sources of financial support. Most of the male interview participants said they had no regular sources of outside financial support. Participant 9 (male) was different. He said that his brother helped him sometimes, but still the PEJ grant did not lead his brother to reduce his support because his brother “understood that this money had a specific purpose.� For women, the story was a bit different. Most women receive support from their husbands. Only a few of them reported reductions in that level of support following receipt of the PEJ grant, and some of those reductions were due to the husband’s financial difficulties rather than the woman’s new source of capital. Participant 14 (female) is the only clear example where fear of reductions in support from a spouse had an impact on the PEJ grant investment. She explained that she initially wanted to invest in retail of staple crops, but she switched to selling pagnes because she was concerned that her husband would otherwise rely on her business to feed the family. She clarified, “You know our husbands, if I start selling corn, for example, now he won't want to buy corn for the house ….� The interviewer asked, “So that's why you chose the pagnes?� She responded, “Yes, because pagnes aren't 10 something to be consumed now, you see, no.� This example notwithstanding, overall, the data do not support the hypothesis that receipt of the PEJ grant led to a reduction in labor or other capital inputs. Investments Spurred by the encouragement of PEJ personnel, grant recipients all describe having made concrete plans before the grant was disbursed for how they would invest the money. This was part of the program design. All grant applicants were required to submit a simple investment plan to enter the lottery for the grant. Grant recipients who also received the training described especially deliberated investment plans. Participant 9 (male) stated, “At the training course, we were taught to analyze the situation and to think about the ideas we're going to put in place to be able to manage the money transferred to us properly.� Some of the participants who had not received the training expressed a desire for enhancement of their management skills, although they still tended to have specific plans for the investment of the grant. Many of the study participants had completed apprenticeships in skilled trades such as hairdressing, tailoring, and welding. For those participants, the grants were most often used to purchase equipment to start or expand their workshop. Even those without skilled trades described adhering to specific investment plans. None of the study participants said that they did not know what to do with the grant money when it arrived. To the contrary, as discussed above, they had declared their intentions in advance and felt motivated to adhere to their plans. A prominent difficulty in translating investments into profit growth was market volatility – investments sometimes paid off and sometimes they did not. Furthermore, especially for those who engage in retail businesses, the way participants talk about their choice of products gives the sense that success is unpredictable. Participant 2 (female), who is a tailor and also sells items alongside her professional work, said, “There are products that work and others that do not.� The interviewer asked how she could tell what product works and Participant 2 responded, “I’ve already sold several products that did not work.� In other words, she had to try a product to determine if it was viable in the market. In their narratives of the evolution of their income generating activities, other study participants also described deriving profits from certain products or services for a period of time and then needing to change businesses when their activities faltered. The most extreme examples of this phenomenon were the photographers whose market dried up completely because of smart phones. The primary strategy advanced for coping with volatility was diversification. Many study participants describe diversification of income generating activities as an important strategy for managing volatility. Participant 4 (female) is trained as a hairdresser but does not have a workshop. She sells her services as well as a variety of retail products. She expressed a common sentiment, which is that it is best to have multiple activities: “The best is to combine [activities] so that when one doesn’t work, the other has to take over.� Some women also talked about the importance of secondary activities to ensure daily income if their primary business did not produce reliable revenue. Participant 45 (female) used the PEJ grant to invest in her tailoring workshop and in selling charcoal. She explained, “It's true that tailoring works well, but if you can't find customers you won't work. On the other hand, when you go into business [sales], there's never a day when you don't sell. And when both work, you evolve more.� Some grant recipients advocated saving part of the grant as a means of risk mitigation. For those who said they would manage the grant differently if they could do it over again, most explained that they 11 should have invested only part of the grant and saved the rest. The desire for savings stemmed from the acknowledgement that they could not predict whether their investment would pay off, and they wanted to have reserves in case they needed to start over. When asked how she would advise others about how to use the grant, Participant 2 (female) recommended starting slowly to test the market. She said, “I would say that, if you're given the money, say a hundred thousand, you take a hundred and start with twenty thousand to see what it's going to do and put the rest aside.� Participant 30 (male) would give similar advice: “You have to invest a little to see if the activity works. If it doesn't work out, you take on another activity.� Participant 44 (female), who invested in a refrigerator, equipment, and inputs for her cold drinks business, said that she wished she had saved half of the grant instead of investing everything. While they are not saying so explicitly, this preference for saving some grant funds indicates a perception that the riskiness of large investments means they are not the best long-term strategy for achieving financial goals. A few grant recipients made investments that they may not have had the skills to sustain. Of the few examples of business failure in the qualitative data, a couple seem to be linked to insufficient access to the necessary knowledge, skills, or labor. Participant 1 (female) invested in poultry, buying chickens and building them an enclosure. She was forced to close the business when many of the chickens died. She acknowledged that this investment was risky and if she had received a loan rather than the grant, she would have invested in a larger diversity of activities to ensure her ability to repay, again highlighting the perception that diversification is the best way to manage financial risk and volatility. Participant 10 (male) was a hairdresser who used the PEJ grant to open a second salon. He relied on an apprentice to provide labor at the second salon and when that apprentice left the job, he was forced to close the second salon and consolidate all business assets back into one location. Additional analysis of the narratives of grant recipients who acknowledge business setbacks will help to verify whether a lack of skills or labor was a somewhat common source of investment failures. Conclusions Why did the cash grants not have positive impact on profits and why did they cancel out the positive impact of the training? Based on the data available so far, it is easier to eliminate possible explanations than to directly answer this question. The lack of impact does not seem to have been driven by a lack of planning or freedom in investment choices. The primary investment constraints expressed by study participants were pressure to invest the full amount of the grant and to spend the grant according to their original investment plan. As required by the project, grant recipients had plans for grant spending before they received the disbursement and, with only a few exceptions, those plans were guided by the grant recipients themselves. Participants in the study described prevalent income sharing practices, but the data do not contain much evidence that investment of the cash grants was undermined by redistributive pressures. Motivation to invest shortly after receipt of the grant stemmed most often from a desire to put plans into action and to protect the grant from the recipient’s own consumption demands. Study participants also report feeling compelled to be able to demonstrate the full investment of the grant according to their plan. The grants did not lead to reductions in labor contributions. Quite the opposite; grant recipients almost all said that they worked more once they had capital to invest. A few possible explanations deserve further investigation in the data. 12 First, there are hints in the data that the cash grants facilitated investments with uncertain payoffs. The lesson that some grant recipients drew from their experience is that it is better to make smaller, incremental investments that enable estimation of profitability before committing additional money into the business. Presumably, this type of incremental investing was the main growth pathway available to PEJ participants who received the training but not the grant. A related hypothesis is that the grants enabled the expansion of businesses to a size or scope that either the market or the entrepreneur could not support. On the other hand, evidence to counter this hypothesis can be derived from the many examples of grant recipients who used the grant to make relatively large and profitable investments, such as those who started their own workshops or salons using the grant. In additional analysis, we will systematically code types of investments and examine how they relate to earnings trajectories. Second, further analysis will examine variation in the role of women’s businesses in meeting household needs and how their role was affected (or not) by receipt of the grant. When asked to describe the division of responsibilities for household expenditures, most men and women said that major expenses were the responsibility of men. Women fill in the gaps where needed. Some female study participants indicated that they have been paying for more household expenses since they received the grant, but so far in the data it is not clear if their increased contributions were caused by their receipt of the grant or if they are due to normal fluctuations in their husbands’ revenue and/or growth in their own profits. Third, later interviews should contain more data on the interplay between demographic events (marriage, childbearing, and residential mobility) and business trajectories, which will enable an examination of a possible source of gender differences in profit trajectories. Given the target age range for participation in PEJ (ages 18-35), many study participants experienced important life events in the years following the disbursement of the grants. Research in other populations documents that these types of life events can have a disproportionate impact on businesses owned by women. In the data so far, however, there is nothing to suggest that the cash grant might somehow have modified or amplified the work-life frictions experienced by young women. We will revisit this question in the data that has more detail on lifecourse trajectories. Fourth, additional insights may emerge from a careful comparison of the quantitative survey data on profits with the qualitative narrative of business trajectories, especially for the cases where the two types of data do not appear to match. The comparison will help determine if the quantitative data is incomplete in important ways (for example, missing information on profits from secondary businesses) and/or if the qualitative data is overly biased toward positive or recent experiences. Systematic differences between the two data sources may help point to areas for additional analysis in both data sets that could illuminate mechanisms of impact of the cash grant. The next step for this qualitative study is systematic analysis of all data. The analysis will focus on 1) identifying why the average impact of the PEJ grant on profits was not positive, and 2) examining gender differences in the experiences and perspectives of grant recipients. Ultimately, a final set of findings will be shared in a working paper or academic journal article and related policy brief. 13 Annex A: In-depth interview guide PEJ – Entretien individuel – Participants Dans le cadre du projet emploi des jeunes au Bénin (PEJ, P132667) clôturé en juin 2019, le Gouvernement du Bénin a piloté avec succès un programme d’inclusion économique. Le programme offrait un ensemble complet de services, y compris des formations professionnelles et des subventions en espèces destinées à l'investissement dans les entreprises. Une évaluation de l’impact du PEJ, menée par le Gender Innovation Lab de la Banque Mondiale, a montré que, contrairement aux attentes, les subventions n'ont eu aucun impact, et parfois un impact négatif, sur les revenus des bénéficiaires. En revanche, les revenus des hommes et des femmes qui ont participé à la formation se sont améliorés en moyenne. Cette recherche qualitative constituera un suivi à long terme visant à éclairer les mécanismes à l’origine des résultats de l’évaluation d’impact. Pour limiter la portée de la question de recherche, l’équipe se concentrera spécifiquement sur les bénéficiaires des subventions en espèces. Nous cherchons à comprendre : Pourquoi les subventions en espèces ne se sont-elles pas traduites, en moyenne, par une augmentation des bénéfices et des revenus ? Comment l'aide financière a-t-elle été perçue et utilisée ? Les mécanismes qui sous-tendent l'absence d'impact positif sont-ils les mêmes pour les hommes et pour les femmes ? Ce guide d’entretien est conçu pour orienter votre conversation avec les participant(e)s. Le guide sert de pense-bête pour vous rappeler les différents points de discussion avec les interlocuteurs. Il ne s’agit donc pas de lire directement. L’ordre de sélection des questions à poser dépend des conditions de déroulement de l’entretien et donc des opportunités offertes par l’interlocuteur. Par exemple, si un/e participant/e introduit un sujet qui vient plus tard dans le guide, restez-y aussi longtemps que le/la participant/e a quelque chose à dire. Après, revenez aux autres questions, en essayant de ne pas interrompre le fil de l’entretien. Une bonne conduite de l’entretien requiert l’usage des relances et donc d’une écoute active. Ne passer pas à une question sans avoir évacuer totalement tous les aspects de celle que vous abordez. Avant de terminer chaque entretien, vous devez vous demander si vous avez couvert tous les aspects prévus dans le guide. Continuez la conversation aussi longtemps que vous le pouvez. Au cours de l’entretien, si le/la participant/e se sent mal à l’aise, il/elle est libre d’arrêter l’entretien. Processus de consentement éclairé Avant de commencer l’entretien, lire au répondant : • L’introduction : Je vous remercie d’avoir consacré de votre temps si précieux pour m’accorder cet entretien. Je m’appelle ____ et je travaille pour CRAD, un bureau d’études privé béninois. • L’objectif : Je vous suis venu voir aujourd’hui dans le cadre d’une étude concernant le projet d’emploi pour jeunes mené par le Gouvernement du Benin et clôturé en 2019. L’objectif de de l’entretien que je voudrais avoir avec vous est de comprendre comment le programme a été bénéfique ou non pour les participants. 14 • La sélection du répondant : Vous avez été identifié comme interlocuteur pour cette recherche du fait de votre expérience avec le projet auquel vous avez pris part. Votre participation est indispensable pour l’atteinte de notre objectif. En plus de vous plusieurs autres participants du programme ont été identifiés. • La volonté : Votre participation à cet entretien est entièrement volontaire, ce qui veut dire que vous êtes libre de participer ou non. Votre refus n’aura aucune conséquences en aucune manière sur vous. Vous pouvez mettre fin à la discussion à n’importe quel moment. Si je vous pose une question à laquelle vous ne voulez pas répondre, dites-le-moi et nous passerons à une autre question. • La confidentialité : Je voudrais aussi vous garantir l’entière confidentialité dans l’exploitation des informations que vous allez me fournir à travers vos déclarations. Lorsque nous partageons ce que nous avons appris lors de cet entretien avec les gens dehors de l’équipe de recherche, nous n’utiliserons jamais votre nom. • La durée : L’entretien durera le temps de votre disponibilité sans excéder une heure et demie d’échange. Aussi je voudrais solliciter indulgence pour accepter de nous recevoir de nouveau en cas de besoin. • Le remerciement : Il n’y aura aucun avantage ni coût direct de votre participation, autre que votre temps. • L’enregistrement : Pour des besoins d’efficacité et par souci de transcription fidèle de vos propos je voudrais que vous m’autoriser l’enregistrement de l’entretien. Question 1. Avant de commencer, avez-vous des questions ? Question 2. Acceptez-vous d'y participer ? Question 3. Acceptez-vous que cet entretien soit enregistré ? * [Allumer le magnétophone pour enregistrer l’entretien] * Rappel du consentement sur le magnétophone : Avant de commencer, pouvez-vous confirmer que vous comprenez que votre participation à cet entretien est volontaire et que vous avez accepté d'y participer ? [Une fois que tous ces aspects du consentement sont confirmés :] Merci beaucoup pour avoir accepté de participer dans cette étude. Brise-glace : Avant de commencer l’entretien, échangez quelques mots avec la participante d’une manière amicale et gentille pendant quelques minutes. 15 SECTION 1 : MENAGE ET ACTIVITES GENERATRICES DE REVENUS 1. SVP, pour commencer, parlez-moi un peu de votre ménage et famille ? (mariée ? enfants ? qui vive dans le ménage ? etc.) 2. Quelles sont vos principales activités génératrices de revenus ? a) (Pour chacune) Quand avez-vous commencé cette activité ? 3. (Pour chaque type d’activité/entreprise identifiée) Pourquoi avez-vous choisi ce type d’entreprise/activité ? Quelles alternatives avez-vous considéré ? Pourquoi est-ce que vous n’avez pas choisi de poursuivre ces autres options ? a. Comment avez-vous obtenu les fonds ou matériaux nécessaires pour commencer ? b. Quels ont été les investissements importants dans le développement de votre entreprise ? i. Quelle a été la source des fonds pour l'investissement ? ii. En fin de compte, l'investissement a-t-il été bénéfique ? c. D’autres personnes vous ont aidé à créer ou à développer votre entreprise ? Qui et comment ? 4. Avez-vous eu d’autres entreprises dans le passé ? Pouvez-vous m’en parler. [AR : Dessinez une chronologie des entreprises, avec des symboles simples] a. Quand et pourquoi avez-vous changé/arrêté cette entreprise/activité ? 5. Est-ce que vous souhaitez épargner une partie de vos revenus ? Est-ce que normalement vous réussissez à le faire ? Comment est-ce que vous épargnez votre argent ? [à la maison ? dans un groupe d'épargne ? en prêtant à d'autres personnes ? en achetant des biens pour les revendre plus tard ? dans une IMF ?] SECTION 2 : GESTION DU REVENU ET DES DEPENSES DU MENAGE 6. Qui d’autre dans votre ménage gagne de l’argent ? a. Quel est leur travail/activité ? b. Y a-t-il eu des changements importants dans leurs revenus au cours des 5 dernières années ? 7. Parmi les dépenses du ménage, lesquelles sont généralement prises en charge par vous-même ? Lesquelles sont généralement prises en charge par votre mari / partenaire ? Lesquelles sont généralement prises en charge par une autre personne (qui ?) ? a. Cela change-t-il d'un mois à l'autre ? b. Votre mari/autre adulte vous donne habituellement ou parfois de l’argent pour certaines dépenses ? A quelle fréquence ? Qui décide le montant ? c. Donnez-vous de l’argent habituellement ou parfois aux autres membres de votre ménage ? A quelle fréquence ? Qui décide le montant ? 8. Est-ce qu’il y avait une occasion récente où la personne habituellement chargée d’une dépense importante du ménage n'a pas pu le payer ? Veuillez expliquer ce qui s'est passé. 16 a. Avez-vous pu trouver les fonds nécessaires ? Comment ? Est-ce que c'est passé encore ? Avez-vous toujours géré la dépense de la même façon, ou est-ce que vous l’avez géré différemment dans une autre occasion ? SVP citez un/des exemple/s. [AR : Pour les prochaines questions, dessinez une petite carte des relations de transferts économiques pour utiliser comme aide-mémoire plus tard] 9. Est-ce que vous recevez parfois de l’argent de personnes hors de votre ménage ? a. De qui ? b. Est-ce qu’ils sont des transferts habituels ou ponctuels ? c. Qui décide le montant ? d. Vous utilisez cet argent pour quel(s) dépense(s) ? 10. Est-ce que vous donnez de l'argent à des personnes hors de votre ménage ? a. A qui ? b. Est-ce qu’ils sont des transferts habituels ou ponctuels ? c. Qui décide le montant ? d. Vous donnez cet argent pour quel(s) dépense(s) ? SECTION 3 : L’UTILISATION DE LA SUBVENTION EN ESPECES DU PEJ 11. D'après ce que j'ai compris, vous avez participé au projet du gouvernement béninois pour l'emploi des jeunes il y a quelques années. Que pensez-vous de ce projet dont vous aviez participé ? 12. D'après les dossiers du projet, vous avez reçu une subvention en espèces. Est-ce c’est vrai ? Vous souvenez-vous du montant que vous avez reçu ? 13. Quelle(s) activité(s) économique(s) menez-vous au moment où vous aviez participé dans le projet ? Comment était votre entreprise avant de recevoir la subvention ? [AR : Utilisez la chronologie pour situer la réception de la subvention parmi ses activités économiques] 14. Avant de recevoir la subvention, est-ce que vous aviez un projet de précis que vous souhaitez réaliser avec la subvention ? 15. Le projet vous a accordé cet argent pour que vous l'utilisiez de la manière qui vous convient le mieux. Qu’est-ce que vous avez fait avec cet argent ? a. Avez-vous acheté quelque chose pour l’entreprise ? i. Quoi ? S’agit-il d’une augmentation du stock ou d’un actif pour l’entreprise ? Combien a-t-il coûté ? b. Avez-vous acheté quelque chose pour votre ménage ? i. Quoi ? Combien a-t-il coûté ? c. Avez-vous fait des changements dans votre entreprise ? (L’activité, les produits ou services vendus, le lieu…) d. Avez-vous embauché des employés ? i. Qui ? Comment avez-vous choisi cette personne ? Est-ce que ça vous permettait de travailler moins vous-même dans l’entreprise ? Combien est-ce que vous lui 17 payez ? Est-ce que cette personne travaille toujours pour l’entreprise ? Est-ce que vous pensez que cet employé vous permet de gagner plus dans l’entreprise ? e. Avez-vous commencé une nouvelle entreprise après avoir reçu la subvention ? SVP décrivez-la. i. Pourquoi avez-vous choisi de commencer ce type d’entreprise ? ii. Pourquoi avez-vous commencé une nouvelle entreprise au lieu d’investir dans l’entreprise que vous aviez déjà ? f. Avez-vous épargné une partie de la subvention ? i. Combien avez-vous épargné ? ii. Qu’est-ce que vous avez faites avec l’argent épargné ? (gardé à la maison ? dans un groupe d'épargne ? en prêtant à d'autres personnes ? en achetant des biens pour les revendre plus tard ? dans une IMF ?) iii. Quand est-ce que vous avez dépensez cet argent ? iv. Qu’avez-vous acheté avec ? g. Avez-vous partagé la subvention ou une partie de la subvention avec quelqu’un d’autre ? i. Avez-vous acheté quelque chose pour quelqu’un d’autre ? POUR CHAQUE TYPE DE DEPENSE OU CHANGEMENT DANS L’ENTREPRISE IDENTIFIE DANS LA SECTION PRECEDENT : Hypothèses : (1) Les participants n’avaient pas une bonne idée de comment investir la subvention. (2) Les participants ont été pressionné ou influencé d’investir la subvention dans une manière particulière. 16. Comment avez-vous décidé d’utiliser l’argent de cette manière ? a. En avez-vous discuté avec quelqu'un d’autre ? Qui ? i. Est-ce que vous l’avez discuté avec votre mari ? Qu’avait-t-il/elle pensé ? ii. Est-ce que vous l’avez discuté avec l’agent du programme PEJ ? Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle vous avait conseillé ? b. Est-ce que quelqu’un ou plusieurs personnes ont influencé la façon dont vous avez utilisé l’argent ? Qui et comment ? 17. Est-ce que vous pensez que la subvention a été utile pour votre entreprise ? Pour votre situation économique ? Pourquoi ? SECTION 4 : TRANSFERTS FINANCIERS. Hypothèses : (3) Les participants ont voulu investir la subvention très rapidement pour la protéger des demandes financières d’autres personnes. (4) Les participants ont fait plus de transferts financiers a d’autres personnes à cause de la subvention. (5) Les participants ont reçu moins d’assistance financière d’autres personnes à cause de la subvention. 18. Est-ce que beaucoup de personnes savaient que vous avez reçu la subvention de PEJ ? [AR : Utilisez la carte des relations de transferts économiques comme aide-mémoire pour poser des questions plus spécifiques] 18 19. Après avoir reçu la subvention, est-ce que vous avez reçu beaucoup de demandes d’argent des autres personnes, plus que d’habitude ? a. De qui ? Pour quoi ? b. Avez-vous donné de l’argent pour chaque demande ? Pourquoi ? c. Avez-vous donné plus d’argent que d’habitude a d’autres personnes après avoir reçu la subvention ? 20. Est-ce que la subvention a fait que les contributions financières que vous receviez d’autres personnes ont été réduites ou supprimées ? a. Quelles contributions ont changé ? De qui ? b. Est-ce que votre mari a changé leur contribution aux dépenses du ménage ? c. Est-ce que vous vous inquiétiez que votre mari change ses contributions aux dépenses du ménage ? 21. Parfois, nous sommes motivés à dépenser notre argent très rapidement, avant que beaucoup de personnes peuvent le demander. Avez-vous senti comme ça ? SECTION 5 : EFFORT DANS L’ENTREPRISE Hypothèses : (6) La subvention a entrainé une réduction temporaire des efforts qu’ils faisaient pour leur entreprise parce qu'ils ont pu répondre aux besoins du ménage sans travailler autant. 22. Parfois quand on reçoit un montant d’argent, ça nous permet de travailler un peu moins pour une période, et de consacrer du temps á d’autres choses. Après avoir reçu la subvention, est-ce que vous avez changé votre propre travail dans l’entreprise ou d’autres activités économiques ? a. Avez-vous travaillé plus, ou moins ? b. (S’il y avait un changement) Pourquoi ? c. Qu’avez-vous fait á la place ? SECTION 6 : REFLEXIONS ET CONCLUSION 23. Si vous pouviez refaire vos décisions sur l’utilisation de la subvention, changeriez-vous quelque chose ou est-ce que vous utiliserez les ressources de la même façon ? 24. Si le même montant d’argent était un prêt au lieu d’une subvention, auriez-vous fait la même chose avec ? Pourquoi ? Qu’est-ce que vous auriez changé dans l’utilisation de l’argent ? 25. Connaissez-vous quelqu'un qui a utilisé la subvention d'une manière différente de la vôtre ? Comment ? Est-ce que leur décision était bon pour leur entreprise / leur situation économique ? Pourquoi pensez-vous qu'ils ont fait des choix différents des vôtres ? 26. [Si marié(e) :] Si votre mari/épouse avait reçu la subvention à votre place, pensez-vous qu'il/elle aurait utilisé l’argent différemment ? Comment ? 19 27. Maintenant que de nombreuses années se sont écoulées, pensez-vous que la subvention affecte encore votre vie, que ce soit de manière positive ou négative ? Comment ? 28. Si vous connaissiez quelqu'un qui va bientôt recevoir le même type de subvention, quels conseils lui donneriez-vous ? a. Votre conseil serait-il différent s'il s'agissait d'un homme ou d'une femme ? Et selon qu'il est marié ou non ? Quels sont les autres éléments qui influenceraient les conseils que vous donneriez ? 29. Avez-vous autre chose à ajouter ? Avez-vous des questions pour moi ? Avant la fin de l’entretien, vérifiez que vous disposez de toutes les informations suivantes. Demandez l’information auprès du participant si nécessaire. • Sexe • Age • Situation matrimoniale • Nombre d’enfants • Composition du ménage • Niveau de scolarisation 20