Data and Code for: Cashing In (and Out): Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Mobile Money in Malawi
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Jonathan Robinson, University of California; Shilpa Aggarwal, Indian School of Business; Valentina Brailovskaya, Idinsight
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
| AER-Submission | 10/08/2020 09:29:AM |
Project Citation:
Project Description
Scope of Project
E42 Monetary Systems; Standards; Regimes; Government and the Monetary System; Payment Systems
G21 Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
G51 Household Finance: Household Saving, Borrowing, Debt, and Wealth
G53 Household Finance: Financial Literacy
L26 Entrepreneurship
O16 Economic Development: Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance
Methodology
We excluded several classes of businesses in this exercise since they were unlikely to qualify as a small business. This included gas stations, clinics, hospitals, banks, microfinance institutions, manufacturing plants, warehouses, wholesalers and supermarkets.
After the census, we imposed additional exclusion criteria. First, we excluded any business with more than 2 employees (6% of the census list). Second, we excluded businesses in which the business owner was a mobile money agent (3%) to prevent confounding the mobile money treatment. Third, we excluded businesses in which the owner was not actively involved in running operations (defined as working there at least 5 days per week) since such owners would not be able to reliably answer business-related questions (9%). Fourth, we excluded businesses that were planning to shut down within 6 months (before the project was slated to end – 16%).
Once we had a sample of businesses that met our criteria, we imposed two other exclusion criteria, using data that had been collected either at the census or prior to the baseline survey. First, we removed all polygamous households, which amounted to 5% of the sample. Second, since we initially planned to collect surveys with paper-and-pencil logbooks (we eventually changed to phone surveys), we excluded business owners who were illiterate (about 20% of the sample) and those whose eyesight prevented them from reading a printed page (about 10% of the sample).These exclusion criteria left us with approximately 1,640 eligible businesses from which we drew our final sample, stratified by financial access (defined by having either a mobile money or bank account) and self-reported distance to the nearest mobile money agent (defined as above or below the sample median). In drawing the sample, we chose to oversample businesses connected to the electricity grid: while 26% of eligible businesses were connected to the grid, we sampled 35%. We replaced respondents who could not be found (about 6.5%) or refused to participate (another6.5%) with randomly chosen backups, ultimately yielding a sample of 480 businesses
Related Publications
Published Versions
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as received from the data depositor. As of April 2026, depositors are required to submit study materials in accessible formats. ICPSR has not reviewed, checked, or processed this material. For additional information about the study, please contact the investigator(s) directly. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR's Accessibility Center.