evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

YouWiN! — Nigeria's Randomized Business Plan Competition for High-Growth Entrepreneurs

Nigeria · Abuja · See the Nigeria profile · See the Abuja profile

Evidence: Randomised controlled trial Top 61% 67/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Nigeria's YouWiN! randomly granted ~$34m ($50k each) among matched finalists (2011-15, ~24,000 applicants). A World Bank RCT (McKenzie 2017, AER) found ~7,000 net jobs at ~$8,538/job and +20pp odds of reaching 10+ employees.

24000 applications
Applications received (2011)
100 million USD
Federal spending disbursed (2012-2015)
3000 businesses
Winning firms funded (2012-2015)
50000 USD
Average grant size
1200 women
Female winners (second cycle)
20 percentage points
Increase in odds of employing 10+ workers
7000 jobs
Estimated net jobs created
8538 USD/job
Estimated cost per job created
YouWiN! — Nigeria's Randomized Business Plan Competition for High-Growth Entrepreneurs

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Federal Government of Nigeria (Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Communication Technology, Ministry of Youth Development), with World Bank and DFID support
Period
2011–2016
Keywords
entrepreneurship, SME grants, youth employment, business plan competition

Context

Nigeria launched a national business-plan competition in October 2011 (Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Communication Technology and Ministry of Youth Development, with World Bank and DFID support) to identify and support high-growth entrepreneurs, in a country where almost all firms have fewer than ten workers.

Objectives

Select and fund promising business plans while generating causal evidence of impact, by using a lottery among similarly-scored finalists rather than ranking alone to decide winners.

Activities

Almost 24,000 applications were judged; between 2012 and 2015, federal spending exceeded $100 million across more than 3,000 winners, who received grants averaging $50,000; a second cycle was dedicated exclusively to women and produced 1,200 female winners.

Results

Winning firms were substantially more likely to have started operating and survived, and were over 20 percentage points more likely to employ 10 or more workers than non-winners. Follow-on reporting put total net job creation at roughly 7,000 jobs, at an estimated cost of about $8,538 per job - well below the $11,000-$80,000 typical of comparable job-creation programmes.

Conclusions

The scheme was not sustained at its original scale after 2015 and functioned as one large cohort rather than an ongoing pipeline; roughly half of similarly-qualified finalists received nothing, drawing domestic criticism over fairness and disbursement delays. Kenya has since launched a similar competition, though no independent evaluation of it exists yet.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Very high (> €5M) — Federal spending exceeded $100 million disbursed as grants averaging $50,000 to more than 3,000 winners over 2012-2015.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Launched October 2011; disbursement 2012-2015; evaluation (McKenzie 2017) tracked applicants for several years to 2016.
Staffing & skills
Judging panel to score applications, Federal ministries (Finance, Communication Technology, Youth Development) for administration, World Bank/DFID technical and funding support

Conditions for success

  • Large applicant pool to allow meaningful lottery-based tie-breaking for identification
  • Sufficient grant size (~$50k) to be transformative for small firms
  • Sustained multi-year follow-up tracking of winners and non-winners

Common failure modes

  • Not sustained at original scale after 2015, limiting long-term pipeline
  • Roughly half of similarly-qualified finalists received nothing, causing fairness/disbursement-delay criticism

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful