Vocational and business training to improve women’s labour market outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. We believe that using better and policy-relevant evidence helps to make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middleincome countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer-reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries.

Vocational training for demobilized ex-combatants with disabilities in Rwanda

“…These results are distinct from weak impacts of vocational training for nondisabled people commonly found in extant studies (McKenzie 2017;Chinen et al 2018). This difference can be attributed partly to the severity of disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities.…”

“…Evidence for the effectiveness of vocational training for persons with disabilities in developing countries is scarce. Extant works mainly study youth, women, and unemployed people, but not those with disabilities; they also mainly focus on labor market outcomes, paying limited attention to social reintegration (Chinen et al 2018;Escudero et al 2019;McKenzie 2017;Tripney et al 2013). A systematic review by Tripney et al (2017) of labor market programs for persons with physical or sensory disabilities in developing countries identified 14 studies, including four covering occupational rehabilitation, but none employed rigorous methods to remove bias due to the nonrandom assignment of treatment status.…”

PROTOCOL: Impact of social protection on gender equality in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review of reviews

“…There is a large body of empirical evidence, including systematic reviews, investigating the impact of social protection programmes. A myriad of robust systematic reviews have sought to clarify the impact of social protection programmes on women and men, regardless of their age (Baird et al, 2014; Bassani et al, 2013; Bastagli et al, 2016; Buller et al, 2018; Chinen et al, 2017; Dickson & Bangpan, 2012; Durao et al, 2020; Haberland et al, 2018; Kalamar et al, 2016; Kluve et al, 2017; Langer et al, 2018; Målqvist et al, 2013; Murray et al, 2014; Pega et al, 2015; Tripney et al, 2013; van Hees et al, 2019; Yoong et al, 2012). The results, however, are dispersed with reviews focusing on various specific subtypes of social protection (e.g., labour market programmes, cash transfers), women and/or men, in different regions, and with some offering conflicting or discordant results regarding the impact of social protection measures.…”

“…Pega et al (2015) also acknowledge implementation issues in their use of the concept “fuzzy UCTs” or cash transfers that are unconditional in practice. Other authors considered the role of contextual factors (e.g., time constraints, distance, cost of transport, economic and labour market conditions) (Chinen et al, 2017).…”

How effective are training and mentorship programs for entrepreneurs at promoting entrepreneurial activity? An impact evaluation

“…In a meta-analysis of various programs in developing countries, Cho and Honoratis (2014) suggest that the most relevant instruments to increase business performance are financing support (for women) and business training (for existing entrepreneurs). Additionally, providing a joint package of training and financing seems to be more effective for labor market activities than offering just one of these options (Chinen et al 2018;Fiala 2013).…”