This study examines the impact of a randomized experiment in Jordan in which female community college graduates were assigned to receive a wage subsidy voucher. The wage voucher led to a 38 percentage point increase in employment in the short run, but the average effect is much smaller and no longer statistically significant after the voucher period has expired. The extra job experience gained as a result of the wage subsidy does not provide a stepping-stone to new jobs for these recent graduates, which appears to be due to productivity levels not rising above a binding minimum wage.

Wage subsidies have long been used by Governments as part of their active labor market policies to generate employment for the disadvantaged or to sustain employment during downturns. The current global financial crisis has seen such policies return to prominence, with many developed nations using such policies to try and reduce lay-offs. Nicholas Kaldor (1936), P. Richard Layard and Stephen Nickell (1980), and Lawrence Katz (1998) lay out the economic arguments for such a policy, and discuss conditions under which a short-term subsidy might have longer-term effects on employment for the targeted individuals.

We use a migration lottery program to overcome the double-selectivity problems posed by migration. We compare a wide range of outcomes for the remaining household members of Tongan emigrants with those of members of similar households who were unsuccessful in the lottery, with the policy rules determining which household members can move. Multiple hypothesis testing procedures are used to examine robustness. The overall impact on households left behind is largely negative in terms of resource availability, and both sources of selectivity matter, leading studies that fail to address them adequately to misrepresent the impact of migration on households.

A long-standing question in social science is to what extent differences in management cause differences in firm performance. To investigate this we ran a management field experiment on large Indian textile firms. We provided free consulting on modern management practices to a randomly chosen set of treatment plants and compared their performance to the control plants. We find that adopting these management practices had three main effects. First, it raised average productivity by 11% through improved quality and efficiency and reduced inventory. Second, it increased decentralization of decision making, as better information flow enabled owners to delegate more decisions to middle managers. Third, it increased the use of computers, necessitated by the data collection and analysis involved in modern management. Since these practices were profitable this raises the question of why firms had not adopted these before. Our results suggest that informational barriers were a primary factor in explaining this lack of adoption. Modern management is a technology that diffuses slowly between firms, with many Indian firms initially unaware of its existence or impact. Since competition was limited by constraints on firm entry and growth, badly managed firms were not rapidly driven from the market.

Why Do Firms in Developing Countries Have Low Productivity? by Nicholas Bloom, Aprajit Mahajan, David McKenzie and John Roberts. Published in volume 100, issue 2, pages 619-23 of American Economic Review, May 2010