A new working paper reports the results of Growing America through Entrepreneurship (Project GATE), an experiment designed and implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Small Business Association between September 2003 and July 2005. More than 4,000 individuals applied for free entrepreneurship training services in seven U.S. cities. Half of the applicants were randomly assigned to the treatment group and given an array of best-practice training services. The other half were assigned to the control group, and not offered any free services. Project GATE differs from previous studies of this type because of its size, because applicants were not limited to individuals receiving unemployment relief or government welfare, and because of follow-ups at 6, 18 and 60 months after treatment.
The results were very disappointing. It seems that entrepreneurs are born, not made, since the free training had no long-term impact on entrepreneurial performance.
We find evidence that the training increased average business ownership in the short-run, but that the marginal businesses were unsuccessful and failed to produce tangible or subjective benefits at any of the three follow-up horizons (6-, 18-, and 60- months). We also find no evidence that training shifts the distribution of firms in important ways (e.g., disproportionately creating very successful firms) that might be missed by analysis of average treatment effects. ….
Many of the rationales put forward for subsidizing training—countering credit or human capital constraints in enterprise development, or labor market discrimination—are not borne out by the data. We do find evidence that GATE’s training had relatively strong positive effects on business ownership for the unemployed in the short run, but these effects disappear by the long run. These findings, and the estimated costs of providing training to GATE recipients of $850 to $1,300, suggest that entrepreneurship training may not be a cost-effective method of addressing credit, human capital, discrimination, or employment constraints.
The results here also speak to the importance of understanding which components of training are more and less helpful, and for which populations. Should subsidies for entrepreneurship training be re-allocated to job training? Should content from entrepreneurship training be grafted onto job training? Understanding more about the effects and mechanisms of entrepreneurship training is particularly important given the continued growth and popularity of these programs around the world.
Robert W. Fairlie, Dean S. Karlan and Jonathan Zinman, “Behind the GATE Experiment: Evidence on Effects of and Rationales for Subsidized Entrepreneurship Training“, Yale Economics Department Working Paper 954 (25 January 2012).
This report circulates also behind a subscription wall as NBER Working Paper 17804 (February 2012).
The authors are from the University of California-Santa Cruz, Yale University and Dartmouth College, respectively.
