Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
Why do more small firms in developing countries not use the market for professional business services like accounting, marketing, and human resource specialists? Two key reasons may be that firms lack information about the availability of these services, and that they struggle to distinguish the quality of good versus bad providers. A brand recognition exercise finds that most small firms are unaware of most providers in this market, and a survey of service providers reveals that they largely rely on word-of-mouth and informal reputation mechanisms for acquiring customers. This study set up a business services marketplace that contains information about the different providers present in the market and used mystery shopper visits to develop a quality ratings system. A randomized experiment with more than 1,000 firms provided access to this marketplace to the treatment group and randomized whether firms received just information or also quality ratings. The provision of quality ratings information shifts small firms' preferences over which provider they would like to use, increasing the average quality rating of their preferred providers by 0.2 to 0.4 ratings points out of 5. However, neither the provision of information nor these quality ratings had any significant impact on the likelihood that small firms go on to hire a business service provider over the subsequent six months. The results suggest that alleviating information frictions alone is insufficient to increase usage of professional business services.
Business Development Services --- Business Support Program --- Enterprise Development and Reform --- Firm Size --- Private Sector Development --- Professional Business Services --- Quality Rating --- Small and Medium Size Enterprises --- Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises --- Small Firm Growth
Choose an application
To assess the impact of COVID-19 on firms, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation conducted Business Pulse Surveys in several countries, including six in the South Asia region. Analysis focusing on the South Asia region suggests that, first, firms in the South Asia region have suffered disproportionately more from the economic brunt of the pandemic. Second, even within the region, COVID-19 did not affect all firms equally. Although exporters remain resilient by some metrics, firms that are smaller, female-led firms and those in vulnerable sectors suffered higher rates of closure. Third, while digital technologies have taken the center stage post-pandemic, the South Asia region lags in the adoption of these technologies. Finally, policy support for firms is key to building back better and resilient recovery, yet only a small share of firms can access public support. To be effective, firm support programs ought to be carefully customized and target firms based on the dominant channel through which COVID-19 affects them rather than their external attributes.
Business Cycles and Stabilization Policies --- Business Development Services --- Business Support Program --- Competition Policy --- Coronavirus --- COVID-19 --- Digital Economy --- Disease Control and Prevention --- Enterprise Development and Reform --- Enterprise Survey --- Female Entrepreneurs --- Health, Nutrition and Population --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Pandemic Impact --- Private Sector Economics --- Public Sector Development --- Public Support --- Resilient Recovery
Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|